Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Best King Air

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
B

Byei

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Posts
23
We currently operate a Beechjet 400A and typically have 4-5 people on board. When we first purchased it we we doing single leg longer trips, but have changed to frequent and multiple shorter legs. That along with the cost of fuel is bringing us to reevaluate what we fly. We are looking at all three of the King Airs, but the C90 is probably out because of seating. So we are looking at B200, 300 and 350s. I know there are a ton of you with experience in all of these, what have you found to be best in:

Speed
Payload
Range
Value
Reliability

Thanks for your help!

byei
 
What is your purchase budget? Hard to beat a 350 if you can afford it. More or less seats full tanks full. Also holds resale extremely well. Do your home work though. Cost per mile may not be much different unless you are doing really short legs.
Crew cost will go down of course if you change to single Pilot. 200 is an awful hard working bird too!
 
Carefully evaluate your average trip length while deciding your aircraft needs.

The distance at which it becomes more cost effective to fly the King Air (in still air) is at 400 nautical miles from point of origin. This distance becomes closer to the take-off point with a headwind because the headwind constitutes a larger percentage of the turbo-props total speed when compared to a jet. The wind would matter, for instance, if most of your trips were morning departures West with evening returns East where diurnal effects would diminish the expected tail wind on the return trip. The higher the fuel price from today's average cost, the more distant from your point of origin the break even distance becomes.

The real issue you are considering is fuel versus maintenance accrual. The jet achieves its cost savings beyond 400 nm by taking less time to get to the destination thereby reducing maintenance costs (it will always burn more fuel).

When it came time for the US Army to replace it's aging U-21s (an unpressurized A90), they found the preponderance of their trip lengths for small cabin aircraft to be between 800 nm and 1,000 nm. They were able to convince the Pentagon to buy them 65 Citation UC-35Bs as a wise business decision because at those ranges the jets cost less to operate than the King Airs.

If the preponderance of your trips are beyond 400 nm, keep the jet. If they are not, buy the least King Air that will fill your mission requirements. This would be consistent with your stated goal of saving money.

If your average passenger load is 8 or less don't spend the extra 20% for the 350, the B200 is a great airplane that cruises 7 knots slower than the 350 with a similar average fuel flow at long range cruise.

If you feel compelled to spend over $6 million for a turbo-prop, run the numbers for the Piaggio 180 as well as for the KA350. The Italian manufacturer is beginning to have a large enough footprint in the US to make the P180 at least worth a look.

When I was in the military I did a closed-loop handling qualities evaluation on the P180. While I would characterize the Piaggio as delicate, it has a large cabin, good field performance and is quite quick.

GV
 
The best King Air by far is the 350. But you can get similar performance in the B200. The B200 is really a 275 kts airplane and the 350 is 300 kts. The 350 has a lower cruise RPM thus allowing for a much quieter cabin...which is nice on the longer legs. The newer King Air's offer an active noise cancellation system throught the cabin - not as quiet as a jet, but very comfortable. You can't go wrong with either airplane (350/200).
 
The King Air 300 or 350 don't offer much more than the 200, but do it at a much higher price tag. For value the 200 is probably the ideal. As stated before, look closely at your mission profile, including destination (length and runway type), pilot experience, etc, before making the decision. A turboprop may or may not be what you want.

As stated, the Piaggio is good, but expensive. It does jet performance at turboprop operating costs. It will do a hundred knots more than the King Air 200 for the same fuel burns, will go to FL410, and has a lot more range in less time. It's requires more runway, but not excessively so.
 
If your looking for budget forget about the proline 21, hes looking to save money. Depending on your trip lenth/passenger load/ and cargo is going to be the factor. As much as i love the 350 the 200 may do the job just fine. If your flying the 400A into the same airports your gonna be flying the king air then TO performance in the king air wont be a problem. Do pay MUCH attention to the king air's your looking at. I worked at a beechcraft maintnance center for alittle over 2 years and saw some airplanes that look great on the outside with MANY new parts (avionics, engines, landing gear ect...) but always had all kinds of different problems and racket up some big bills. Mostly the 200's and the A90's. The 350 IMHO is the best turbo prop out there....if you can afford it. Good luck with your couse, you wont go wrong.
 
I would seriously consider a 200. The C90 would be out due to weight and passenger load. Keep in mind, the 350 you would need a type rating for. So, thats a higher cost for training.

If you can fit it in the 200 and you dont need to top off fuel, you are pretty much inside the Cg/gross weight.

Top off w fuel and you easily have a 5hr range. Best altitude works out between 240 - 280.

Hope that helps. There is alot of 200's on the market right now so prices are comparable. We have one on the market ourselves.

PM me if you need more.
 
real world performance

I never would see more than 270, 280 TAS in our B-350's.

Some of you get 300, but I just have never seen that.
 
Personally I liked the 300 after having flown all 3. It is the faster of the 3, will climb straight to 350' at gross (14,000), and will cruise at 300-305 IF you run the engines hard. I flew it at sissy cruise @ 285 true. Has excellent climb performance. Eats a 200 easily in a climb. The 350 provides more stability, but at a cost, climb and cruise. Don't care what everyone else says, the 300 beats em all.
 
Thank you for all of the responses. I am surprised to hear from one of you that you can't get 300kts out of your 350, from what everyone else has said here and elsewhere that shouldn't be a problem.

We are hoping to stay below 3 million and I am thinking that will be fine with the market. There are several 350's and B200s that I've checked into. From my limited pilot math calculations...flying 165000nm a year, the extra speed on a 350 should save in excess of $30,000 in fuel over the B200 which would offest the training costs just fine. Does that sound right? The fuel burns I used off of Hawker/Beech's website seemed to match what one of our other pilots used to plan in the B200, 700lbs the first hour and 600 after that. I bumped the 350 to 700 the first hour and 650 after that is that realistic?

You guys are very helpful, THanks!

byei
 
cruise ITT

I run it at 750-785 ITT, we never liked running it full bore at cruise

if you are doing mostly X-C trips of 1 hours+, your first hour will be about 700 pph, then 550-600 at cruise

the max ceiling is 350 but the plane performs best (speed, fuel burn, etc trade-off) at 240 to 260 area.

you can get to 35,000 so you can get good fuel burn but you gotta get there first.

climb performance sucks 28K and above, and if you penetrate clouds, you need to open ice doors, plane on REALLY horrible climb performance.

again, we basically always flew FL 240 to 260. One day while bored at cruise, I did some calculations and discovered that if you plan on flying at 18K or 19K, if you instead fly at 21K or 22K (not much higher), your PPH savings was like a 20% improvement over the lower altitide. Or similar silly bored-at-cruise discovery.

FYI the planes with the Cargo Wing lockers are doggier in the climb than the non-wing locker ones, my experience.

I have about 2000 TT in the 350, maybe 1700 of it as PIC, if you have any questions about the day-to-day nuisances/lack of, just ask

right now some people with 6 million in their pocket would rather buy a Bravo than something with propellors mounted to engines. If you are flying 3-4 pax all the time, then maybe a light jet, but no Bravo will carry 8 pax, full fuel from almost any airport in USA in the summer, then fly 5 hours and land with IFR reserves.

the plane is awesome... Top it off, load it up with full PAX, and it will become airborne. Even from 9000 MSL field. A friend of a friend told me it would. (I never did it....;))
 
Last edited:
Add:
Training cost are very expensive for us (proline 21) but your figures should be close. We flight plan 1000lbs the first hour 900 the second and 800 there after. Its conservative but works well. Then again we are in ATL where the first 20mins of the flight is at 4000ft. At FL 240-FL260 you are looking at burning 370lbs per side. We also operate at max power and she loves it. 805ITT
 
I've learned to lower bragging speeds by at least 5% for actual line flying. So if 290-295kts is reasonable I"ll be happy. It is sounding like that is a pretty good match for us. We've been told our pax count will increase to 6-7 on average this year from our sales/marketing team. We operate out of a 4400' small town strip, so we don't have to worry much about taxi time...except to let the oil warm up:) We could continue to operate the Beechjet, but because we will do 2-3 short legs in a row we are almost always burning 1600lbs an hour...but we love it, it will be hard to give up.

byei
 
satpak77 said:
...no Bravo will carry 8 pax, full fuel from almost any airport in USA in the summer, then fly 5 hours and land with IFR reserves.
Click to expand...

True...But the Bravo would only need to fly a little over three hours to go as far as the King Air...

Unless your trip lengths are under probably 400nm, newer Citations will very likely be cheaper to operate and out perform King Airs. Also nice to cruise over the weather in a quite cabin than slog through it.
 
Byei said:
We operate out of a 4400' small town strip, so we don't have to worry much about taxi time...except to let the oil warm up:) We could continue to operate the Beechjet, but because we will do 2-3 short legs in a row we are almost always burning 1600lbs an hour...but we love it, it will be hard to give up.
Click to expand...

Been a while since I've flown the Beechjet, but isn't 4400' a bit short if the runway is wet or contaminated? Perhaps that isn't a problem where you are based...

Anyway, back on topic...I was told by a CJ2+ operator their operating costs on that airframe is equal to their previous aircraft which was a B200.

That said, no Bravo or CJ series (short of maybe the upcoming CJ4) will be able to go full fuel and full seats like the B350 can. Sure it'll be slower and maybe cost a little more to operate, but in regard to sheer payload and runway requirements I don't think you can match its capability.
 
As an example of how awesome the 350 is, during training they make you do a single engine go-around with the gear down and the flaps full.... And it will do it! :beer:
 
400A

Where did you do your training? Just curious. I've been to Flight Safety and Simuflite and have never been asked to go-around SE with gear and flaps full. I've only done gear and flaps approach. That said, I agree with you it probably will do it.
As far as TAS:
Summer flights in the south plan on 290 TAS
Winter flights 300-310 TAS
speeds are based on 800ITT (20 degrees below red line)
 
solpilot said:
400A

Where did you do your training? Just curious. I've been to Flight Safety and Simuflite and have never been asked to go-around SE with gear and flaps full. I've only done gear and flaps approach. That said, I agree with you it probably will do it.
As far as TAS:
Summer flights in the south plan on 290 TAS
Winter flights 300-310 TAS
speeds are based on 800ITT (20 degrees below red line)
Click to expand...

I am not typed. I have about 50 hours SIC in it and the guys I flew it with shared the experience with me. They went to FSI ICT. It was dome as a demo only kind of thing. It was not part of the syllabus. It was done during their initial as a demonstration of how powerful the aircraft is. It could have been instructor specific, or have been discontinued.
 
Its not bragging, you asked what it will do and we get 300-315 out of it. SO FAR. It might change in summer but we bought this plane brand new in December and flown it 50 hours so far. We have loaded it with 8 pax and 2 crew full fuel and she was still in CG, and under weight. Great airplane....
 
You may not be interested, but you might try the SA227 Metro III/Merlin IVc. If you get a 16,000 MTOW, you'll have tremendous range and payload.

MTOW 16,000
BOW 11,000'ish
Fuel Burn 700/500
Cost per Hour $550 (pilot not included)
Cruise 250-275
Seats 12 comfortably

You said you carry 4 to 5 pax? Let's say that is 1000 lbs. You'll be able to fly 7 hours with reserves.

The cabin is huge. My 280lb owner and his football buddies sit comfortably side by side with room to walk between them.

Down sides:
Loud;
Uses plenty of runway;
Water/Methanol is required during the spring, summer, and most of fall and it can be hard to find;
A type rating is required;
It is hard to find a Metro III/Merlin IVc that is not in a cargo configuration, so you'll have some extra start up costs;
Battery starts can be iffy.

If you want a comfortable, big cabin that is cheap to operate and reliable, take a look at the SA227.
 
ksu_aviator said:
You may not be interested, but you might try the SA227 Metro III/Merlin IVc. If you get a 16,000 MTOW, you'll have tremendous range and payload.

MTOW 16,000
BOW 11,000'ish
Fuel Burn 700/500
Cost per Hour $550 (pilot not included)
Cruise 250-275
Seats 12 comfortably

You said you carry 4 to 5 pax? Let's say that is 1000 lbs. You'll be able to fly 7 hours with reserves.

The cabin is huge. My 280lb owner and his football buddies sit comfortably side by side with room to walk between them.

Down sides:
Loud;
Uses plenty of runway;
Water/Methanol is required during the spring, summer, and most of fall and it can be hard to find;
A type rating is required;
It is hard to find a Metro III/Merlin IVc that is not in a cargo configuration, so you'll have some extra start up costs;
Battery starts can be iffy.

If you want a comfortable, big cabin that is cheap to operate and reliable, take a look at the SA227.
Click to expand...

Another web site shows DOC at $1550 per hour. After flying a Merlin III myself I am more likely to believe that number. At todays fuel prices you will burn almost $550 per hour for gas. I found the TPE's very expensive to maintain.

Just my opinion, not flaming.
 
Merlin.....yup, the previous regime tried that before....pax said never again...sorry:)

And someone else asked earlier if 4400' was short for a Beechjet? Well, we definitely use enough of it and flaps 20 is pretty common. We have good close-by alternates we use if there is any contamination, when it is dry it is actualy very comfortable.


byei
 
400A said:
Another web site shows DOC at $1550 per hour. After flying a Merlin III myself I am more likely to believe that number. At todays fuel prices you will burn almost $550 per hour for gas. I found the TPE's very expensive to maintain.

Just my opinion, not flaming.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just that good....:)

I just checked and our average expenses come up to $589 an hour for a Merlin IVc (the big one). That does not include insurance or pilot salary. That is aircraft alone. When you add those we come up to about $1600/hr.

Our fuel burn and average fuel price are pretty low because we use Avfuel (who doesn't?) and long range cruise power for every flight. Plus I like to fly in the 20's so we are only burning 450 to 500 lbs for our second our fuel burn. I actually got 350 lbs per hour out of it when I went up to 270 last week. My numbers show that we average $3.81 per gallon (that includes taxes and ramp fees).

We also average $100 per hour for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance. We have brand new engines and don't plan on keeping the aircraft long enough to reach the really expensive maintenance. It will be 19 or 20 years before these engine time out.

There is a vast difference between the Merlin III and a Merlin IVc. The increased MTOW is 3500 lbs and the cabin is the largest for a single pilot aircraft.

But I don't want to talk you into something you, or your company doesn't want. I was just putting it out there. We are convinced it is the best corporate turbo-prop for the dollar. Mostly because the cabin is just phenominal and the aircraft is incredibly reliable.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Maybe I'm just that good....:)

I just checked and our average expenses come up to $589 an hour for a Merlin IVc (the big one). That does not include insurance or pilot salary. That is aircraft alone. When you add those we come up to about $1600/hr.

Our fuel burn and average fuel price are pretty low because we use Avfuel (who doesn't?) and long range cruise power for every flight. Plus I like to fly in the 20's so we are only burning 450 to 500 lbs for our second our fuel burn. I actually got 350 lbs per hour out of it when I went up to 270 last week. My numbers show that we average $3.81 per gallon (that includes taxes and ramp fees).

We also average $100 per hour for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance. We have brand new engines and don't plan on keeping the aircraft long enough to reach the really expensive maintenance. It will be 19 or 20 years before these engine time out.

There is a vast difference between the Merlin III and a Merlin IVc. The increased MTOW is 3500 lbs and the cabin is the largest for a single pilot aircraft.

But I don't want to talk you into something you, or your company doesn't want. I was just putting it out there. We are convinced it is the best corporate turbo-prop for the dollar. Mostly because the cabin is just phenominal and the aircraft is incredibly reliable.
Click to expand...


Sorry, couldn't resist. I did actually bring the plane up, but it didn't last very long. I have talked to a number of people who have had great experiences with them however...especially the IVc.

I appreciate your input,

byei
 
It is not the B-90
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom