King air 300 questions

[H.Agenda]

Is it worth equiping with RVSM? How do the legs compare to a 200?

 

[deadstick]

Is it worth equiping with RVSM? How do the legs compare to a 200?

I know a guy who convinced his boss to RVSM the 90.....I don't believe they ever used it.

You really have to look at your mission profiles.

 

[honeycomb]

You'll never use the RVSM with a 300 if you don't go out west.

I flew one a few years ago. The best Alt's for speed's/ff's happened to be in now RVSM terriority.

But even then you are still only 315kts. That is a good 100kts slower than the slowest of jets. You'll be out of RVSM airspace so fast you'll look like a brick with no wings or engines.

The B200 is a bad choice too. It is really a 200 with better (read higher dif.) pressurization. So, again another animal that doesn't need RVSM.

Its a waste of money. Or, just a big ego.

But, the 300/350 is one heck of a good machine. It burns much more fuel down low compared to a 200.

The 300 is a great machine. It is just to slow for RVSM.

Mx on the 300/350 is a lot more than a regular 200. You have time limited (not just hour limited/cycle limited) components and extra mx issues that a 200 doesn't even worry about.

If you don't go over 600 nautical miles per leg you'll be better off in a 200. Unless you have lots of money and a need for the payload of a 300 or 350. Since they don't make 300's anymore you'll be at the used end of the 300's and the avionics vary greatly from years to years.

You can get a much better and newer 200 for the value (read dollars) of a 300 with all other things being equal.

Training is another gotcha. You'll have to be typed for the 300/350. And, must go to rct every year.

The 200 is the most popular t'prop for a reason. It is a 12,500 machine for a reason.

Good Luck.

 

[Hawker800]

I flew the 350 for about 10 years. Loved it. I must agree with Honeycomb except for the maintenance cost. Not that much different. I will say the 300 is an old machine but is faster than the 350. ATC does not like turboprops above 290. You get in the way of the faster jets. They would move me around all day long. As previously stated, 600 miles is a good reference. Long legs, need heavy payload capabilities, the 350 is excellent. We did not RVSM ours even though we were FL. - MONT. on a regular basis. Bought jet instead. Happy Easter!

 

[H.Agenda]

You'll never use the RVSM with a 300 if you don't go out west.

I flew one a few years ago. The best Alt's for speed's/ff's happened to be in now RVSM terriority.

But even then you are still only 315kts. That is a good 100kts slower than the slowest of jets. You'll be out of RVSM airspace so fast you'll look like a brick with no wings or engines.

The B200 is a bad choice too. It is really a 200 with better (read higher dif.) pressurization. So, again another animal that doesn't need RVSM.

Its a waste of money. Or, just a big ego.

But, the 300/350 is one heck of a good machine. It burns much more fuel down low compared to a 200.

The 300 is a great machine. It is just to slow for RVSM.

Mx on the 300/350 is a lot more than a regular 200. You have time limited (not just hour limited/cycle limited) components and extra mx issues that a 200 doesn't even worry about.

If you don't go over 600 nautical miles per leg you'll be better off in a 200. Unless you have lots of money and a need for the payload of a 300 or 350. Since they don't make 300's anymore you'll be at the used end of the 300's and the avionics vary greatly from years to years.

You can get a much better and newer 200 for the value (read dollars) of a 300 with all other things being equal.

Training is another gotcha. You'll have to be typed for the 300/350. And, must go to rct every year.

The 200 is the most popular t'prop for a reason. It is a 12,500 machine for a reason.

Good Luck.

Thanks for the good info guys. The 200 I fly now is great its just really slow on long legs. we have a twice a month trip 300nm, and a once a month 1000+ nm trip but its predominantly North/South (Chicago-orlando/Miami/Bahamas).

I have to fly 270 or 280 to make it South. the same back. I dont think its so much a problem now but some days in winter there is a definite need for a fuel stop.

There is noway I would RVSM a 200, forgive me if I allowed for that to be read in the post; I have recurrent training in the 200, so a type doesnt bother me, and I have already spec'd the cost for the initial in the 300. I get all my hard cost operating stats from Conklin de decker, and I know that the fuel tanks are no bigger than 200.

My question is if a 300 is not RVSM'd will a 200 have longer legs? Because that would defeat my purpose. The boss enjoys the 200 buts wants to go faster, and wants to get to destinations quicker especially on long trips.

How much faster is a 300 than a 200?

How much slower is a 350 than a 300?

(CCD) Conklin de decker's TAS numbers are always erroneously high.

 

[honeycomb]

Yes the 300 has longer legs for the same speed as a 200. The mere fact you can go direct to FL350 (in the old days) at gross wt in a 300 should tell you about the de-rated engines.

As for the 300 in the mid twenty's ... I remember (for some reason) 307 kts.
As for the 350 (vs 300). The 350 is about 10 to 12 kts slower in all phases of crz flt (pwr setting to pwr setting).

You will have to understand that a 300 is under spec'd by most who analyze the a/c. You will spend more on the 300 than a 200 .... period. Also, if you don't fly about 450 to 600 hours a year that cost goes even higher due to lose of hours to spread the cost across. Therefore, the DOC's go up with a lower utilizied a/c.

You'll love the machine. It is the same airframe but different Props/Engines/Electrical (in some cases anyway). Otherwise it is a 200 with a more thursty engine.

The 300 is a smile making machine in terms of performance. I think you can/could fly for over 10 hours if you ran Max Endurance Pwr settings. Never tried it but looked at the numbers once.

Again the advantage of the 300 is the payload (14.4 gross t/o if I remember right) and time to clb performance (second to none in king airs). You'll be at crz alt before you even realize you took off. (That was a little joke but pretty close to accurate.)

Have fun.

If you have the money then a 300 is the way to go. If you spend most of your time down low or short legs then you'll regret the DOC's you generate.

 

[Freight Dog]

I thought the 300 had MTOW of 14k and 350 being 15k.

I flew a Pro Line 21 B-350 and it was RVSM certified. On longer flights, I'd be up in the 30's and it performed fine. If you are doing a 1000nm mission, it's a no-brainer - you get the opportunity to climb above some weather and you'll save gas.

I've seen it several times where another King Air would fly the same route as I would, but my King Air was RVSM-certified and I'd be up in the low 30's and I'd have a smooth ride and the non-RVSM King Air was stuck in mid-20's and getting beat up pretty bad. This is not even going into fuel savings if you're doing say a 1000nm mission or longer. At FL330, you'll be burning around 550pph at ~ 295 knots true.

 

[honeycomb]

FD that is true. I've flown in the 30's with the 300. It did fine. But, I only got to go up there in the Western US and up to Alaska. The rest of the country would send you down real fast or not let you up to start with in most cases. And, this was before RVSM.

Anyway, I believe that the Ramp on a 300 is 14.4 and the T/O is 14.2. I can't remember its been so long ago.

The 350 with ProLine 21 would be nice. I had the ole half and half EADI/EHSI and conventional stuff.

I only flew a 350 about 8 times. So, I don't know/remember enough to be an authority on that machine.

Fly Safe.

 

[Jack Mehoff]

I flew a 350 for a while and we never went above 270 but for once or twice for storms. We didn't do any flying out west though. The company did a cost/benifit and was not worth it.

 

[honeycomb]

Was the cost figured with the cost of buying and installing the RVSM equipment?

or

Was the cost figured only on the operation of the a/c?