King Air 100

[PA44Jockey]

Don't know much about the product, but would like to hear the likes and dislikes from those who may have flown it.

Range?

How much luggage can you take?

Autopilot?

Flight Director?

Single Pilot?

Cockpit comfort?

 

[Bandit60]

It has been years but I have flown both models A100 and a B100 with -10's. I hated every minute of flying those airplanes. I love king airs but the 100 is a terrible airplane. Zero fuel weight is an issue on the airplane. The straight 100 is underpowered. The airplane has a terrible wing on it so it will land as if you are crash landing it everytime. (especially on a B100 if you pull the power to idle). I cant think of a positive thing to say about the airplane. Every other king air is 100 times better.

 

[PA44Jockey]

That bad huh? What are the differences between the A and B? Does it matter if you were flying a full or near empty load?

 

[ENCOREPILOT]

The A-100 is not a good airplane, but the B-100 with -10 engines is. I flew one for several years. It's fast and reliable. It is not as good as a B-200, but it does not cost as much either. My only complaint is the cabin altitude is pretty high (low max diff.) compared to other turbo-props. It's a good airplane for short hops at low altitude. (Will burn less fuel at low altitudes than a Pratt)

 

[mxpilot2]

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

 

[RyanHawkerXP]

Flew the B100 in the mid 80s it was a sleeper in charter. Company got rid of the Cheyenes. Not a 200 but a good aircraft. If you have experience in other Garrett aircraft(MU2, Metro, Merlin) this aircraft flys like a kiddy cart. You learn you don't chop power in a direct drive turbine. Never had a "crash" landing in fact when you get used to the Garrett you can make some nice landings all of the time just like any other airplane. In its time it was a good airplane. Still is.

 

[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!

 

[ultrarunner]

That bad huh? What are the differences between the A and B? Does it matter if you were flying a full or near empty load?

A100's = Pratt PT6

B100's = Garrett's

 

[Bandit60]

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.

 

[RyanHawkerXP]

0 Fuel on the Beech 99 -100 series (same TC) 9600. Max T.O. B100 11,800 landing 11,210. I forgot then empty weight of our B100 - 22 years ago..
I never minded flying the 99 or the 100 (A or B). 200 is a nice aircraft as well. I have spent a long day in a MU2 and would much prefer a long day in a B100.


Type Certificate data sheet.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/regulator...846816B9BFAC386257385005C5F33/$FILE/A14ce.pdf