King Air 100

[noserider]

I was asking the same thing on this board last year and we decided on an A100. If we could have afforded a million plus for a 200 we would have gone that way.
I have flown just about everything out there and I love the airplane.
If you are maxed out at 11500 then it is a little underpowered. But so is the CRJ at 51000 pounds on a hot day. It is all relative. The cockpit is not all that bad for a small plane and the passengers love the cabin and dont seem to mind the slower speed.
Fuel burn on the -34s is:
1st hour - 100 gal/hr
2nd, 3rd and 4th hour - 75 gal/hr

Try to find one with -34s and 4 blade props. Much quieter than 3 blade.

I would rather fly at 235 knots in the A100 than 300 knots in the MU2. And that is 2500 hours of MU2 experience talking. (Especially in ice)

 

[floatflyer99]

Bandit60 Quote:
Originally Posted by floatflyer99
I have about 1500 hours on King Air 100's (PT-6 powered) and I loved them. Yes they are a little underpowered but we routinely hauled 8-10 passengers plus bags in the things (baggage pods mounted under fuselage). Our typical flight was about 400 miles each way.

The best thing about 100's (as opposed to 200's) is the way they handle. They are fun to fly. Short wings means a nice roll rate and solid ride. They are not hard to land but we routinely carried a little power all the way to touchdown. Actually, landings were usually extremely smooth given proper technique. They do not use a lot of runway either.

Awesome airplane for the money!

Have always wanted to ask this question. How is it that you can load the 100 with 8-10 pass and not be over zero fuel weight. Did you ever check the zero fuel weigth? Is there some type of stc that raises the zero fuel weight?

I cannot believe you actually think the 100 flies better than a 200. What kinda drugs are you on. If it was such a great handling airplane then why did Beechcraft change the wing on the 200.

Bandit: I don't know what the empty weight of the 100 that you flew was, but ours were between 6500-7300 lbs. They were all pretty much stripped down, but that included a belly pod. Lets see, 9600(max zero fuel)-7000(empty) = useful load 2600 lbs. 10 pax @ 180 lbs = 1800 lbs. 2 pilots at 180 lbs = 360 lbs. 400 lbs of baggage = lets see hmmm....

1800+180+400= 2380 lbs. so... 7000 + 2380 = 9380 lbs zero fuel weight.

Our 100's actually had seating installed for 12 plus 2 pilots!

As far as handling goes, I've flown both the 200 and 100 and I prefer the 100 IN TERMS OF PURE HANDS-ON FLYING FEEL (I know I'm in the minority, I guess it's just personal preference).

They added a few feet to the wing on the -200 in order to improve performance, which it does, and gives it much better performance in the mid 20's for cruise. And of course the 200 has bigger engines, too. It doesn't make it more FUN to fly though in my opinion. Again, personal preference.

 

[Quimby]

A-100 = 2 power settings

1. Idle.

2. W.F.O.

 

[400A]

It's been a long time since I've flown a 100, but having flown them all, here's my take.

All of them have a KA200 size fuselage and baggage, both are pluses. Cabin layouts and choices are the same, as I remember.

Straight 100- underpowered, anemic, loud.

A100- a little better, seemed to max out in high teens, maybe low 20s, still loud.

B100- I thought it was a good performer, climbed at 180kts, trued at 260kts. in the high teens. Had it up to FL250, which I think was max. certified. It did very well fuel-wise, in the high teens. Did almost 1000 hrs. in one, ton of charter, was well-accepted. A little loud, not as bad as the others, and we had hydraulic gear, which was really nice. Very flexible on fuel load vs. pax and bags, probably 5.5 hours range on full tanks (or was it wings? +nacelles? I don't remember). Supposed to be really nice with the -10s and 5 blades.

Hope this helps.

Chris

I would stay away from the 5 blade props. Some aircraft with 5 blades developed cracks in the tail section and took them back off.

 

[huskerpilot]

I used to fly in a B-100 (BE-62) for about 2 years. Here are some W&B numbers from that POH:

Empty Weight: 7824.5
Max ZFW: 9600
Max Ramp: 11,875
Max TO: 11,800
Lax Landing: 11,210

The fuel system is set up like the KA90s, due to it having the same wing on it.

Mains: 388 gal
Auxs: 82 gal
Max Usable: 470

Let me know if you have any other questions, I can also scan parts of this POH for you if you'd like.

 

[floatflyer99]

Actually, huskiepilot, the KA90 wing is different (a bit longer) than the wing on the 100. The wing on the -100 is almost identical to the wing on the 99. The wing on the A100 is basically the same too, but the fuel setup is different than the earlier -100's (which had filler caps in the nacelles and wings like the 99). The A100 has aux tanks inboard and the main filler caps are further outboard (it's more like the setup on the 200).

I just wanted to point out that the wingspan of a 100 is shorter by about 5 feet than that of a normal 90. Seems weird, but its true. The only exception is the F90 which is a 200 tail, 100 wing and 90 cabin, but that's another story!

 

[Freightdog99]

0 Fuel on the Beech 99 -100 series 9600.(same TC)

All 10 BE99s I've ever flown don't have a zero fuel weight. If you get the proper technique landings in the BE99/100 can be great. I would take a 100 over a 90 (except the F90) any day, but the 200 is way ahead of the 100. Just my $.02

 

[FO4life]

I thought landing the 100 was much easier than the 200. Don’t pull it back below 400# torque or SMASH.