Cheyenne 400 VS King Air 200

[bigD]

They aim for something around Vy and never condsider the additional mileage they could have covered if they would climb at a higher airspeed.

Heh - if I climbed at Vy, I'd get fired for scaring the hell out of the passengers!

 

[Quimby]

My old boss flew a 400LS a few years back. If I remember right, it's got -14 Garretts. He told me it would maintain 100% trq to about FL240. He said it would do every bit of about 340 TAS at that altitude, and routinely flew at FL 350/370 where it was somewhat slower, 300 TAS or so. I have a copy of that old Wide World of Flying video.......the Yeager clip is most impressive if you can find it. Granted, the airplane was very light, but he rotates to about 45 deg, right off the runway & holds it for a while. Did about 39K ft in 13 minutes or so. That thing is more like a jet with props than a standard t-prop. Another guy I talked to that operated one said it would crz climb at 200 kias & 2000 fpm. I'd love to fly that thing.

 

[CL604DRVR]

I have never flown a BE-300 but i think that is the same as the B-1900? If it is I have a hard time belieing that it will hold 300 TAS up till the 30's. The reason I say that is, I used to race a 1900 against a Metro (me) and the metro would usually win.

Then again it might be because the BE-300 weighs considerably less than the 1900. There are a few T'props that do defy the conventioanl t'prop performance such as the Saab 2000. Mainly because that have plenty of SHP available.

Then again I haven't flown a t'prop since '99 and the rules for jet performance are a little different.

Doing a cruise climb has to be one of biggest peeves that people don't do. They aim for something around Vy and never condsider the additional mileage they could have covered if they would climb at a higher airspeed. As a general rule for t'props, I never went abve 18-20 range unless the winds were really cranking. You just loose to much time in the climb and TAS vs what you save in fuel flow.

Like I said before, most guys just don't understand the power curves for a T'prop and its mainly because they have never been taught to look at such items and compute the climb and descent profile.

Well a King Air 300 or 350 is not a 1900. 1050 shp per side on airframes that gross between 13k and 15k. 290 true at 350 of 600pph I have done it many times unless my UNS1k was lying to me. It is particularly effective going West in the winter in the mid to low teens at 310 TAS and then climbing high to catch the tailwind coming home or topping weather so you aren't flying with the ice vanes out. Otherwise high 20's are about the best. Fuel curves are great on paper as long as you apply common sense which is not always so common.

I don't know of any civil turboprop other than the 300 series that you can fill the tanks 5.5 hrs of fuel and the seats 8 + 2 plus throw on some bags and still be within weight and balance. They are hands down the best King Airs made for performance. However, I would take my '79 straight 200 back if I wanted bullet proof reliability... less electrons running arround causing problems.