King Air 90 or Lear 24

[Diesel]

Honestly comparing a king air to a lear is truely like comparing apples to oranges. We fly a king air not really for the speed but for its insane cargo capacity, the ability to operate out of tight strips, and the two engines.

A lear is a hot rod that it's main purpose is to go fast with little comfort.

Personally I fly a jet in my other job but I like truckin along with big comfy seats and the ability to keep on trucking.

One day on a trip up north i hit a top GS of 314. I had to take a picture of it with my camera I've never seen anything like that in an old B.

Can't beat the way a king air is built. A cessna well...............

 

[BE200Driver]

Best of all worlds. King Air 300. Cabin is big, 295TAS and you can pick them up in the low $1m's. Overpowered. Load the seats + fuel and you can still go.

 

[Rick1128]

I'm currently running a king air B-90 with a converted engine package. Sure it's an older king air but you can pick one up cheap and the engine package was a good deal. Plus no more hot sections and fuel nozzels. 68k a side that i don't have to pay anymore.

Made it down to florida in 3.5hrs from northern Jersey. 247kts at FL250.

Now i'm just working at installing XMWX on the tablets in the cockpit to give me something to do on the way.

I've got a friend of mine selling a A-90 with the 750hp engines for a very good price. My guess is less than 600k with 240's speed. Not going to see that till you get to the C-90A's and B's I used to fly.

Several years ago I flew A and B model 90s. The A's then had an electric compressor for pressurization. Needless to say the pressurization was weak at best. Very few engine or airframe mods increase the value of an aircraft. Then there is the issue with support. Most manufacturers will not actively support modified aircraft. Get a good shop to do a very good pre-buy on the aircraft. Considering your area, especially the deice/anti-ice equipment. I would not a major consideration to the paint and interior. Fly it for a year and then when you start upgrading the aircraft do the paint and interior then. Another issue with A's and B's are the avionics. Many of them still have the original radios or an older upgrade. Especially the radar. If you get one with older radios, plan on limiting your flying to less challenging enviroments for a few months while you plan your avionics upgrades with a good local radio shop.

Oregon, you seem to have your idea in place with a good and reasonable plan. While there are many pilots out there that have their own ideas on the 'perfect' personal aircraft, you are the one who has to live with your choice. Me personally, I like the B100 with -10s or a Merlin 3C. But then I believe the 331 is a much better engine than the PT6. And I have over 3000 hours behind each of them.

Good luck.

 

[Diesel]

Ugh i wrote this long post and then flightinfo.com went down.

A's and Early B's have a supercharger running off the left engine. it's not an electrical motor but a shaft driven motor that makes pressurization. With a mod'ed airplane that power drawing, itt spiking motor is pulled off the engine and thrown out the window. Bleed air is then used for pressurization and heat. We have the janitrol heater still installed for ground heat and some real cold winter days, plus long legs at FL250. I'm running max differential on all flights. Trust me running bleed air gives you way more air than the pos supercharger.

The reason for modding an airplane is usualy an owner operator that likes their airplane and has had it for a long time. We ran into timed out engines after owning the plane for 10 years. We went with the walter's because even though the downtime is longer the cost savings by having no hot sections or fuel nozzel inspections are well worth it. Also at the end of 3000hrs you take the engine off and for 68k you get a new one.

There is a reason why Garetts were not put on any other King Air than the B-100. they are heavy, noisey, and a pain to maintain. Any engine that has more gears than a grandfather clock is just prone to more problems. the Pt-6 or walter is a simple engine that is ment to take serious abuse. The walter takes the abuse to the next level because it's a 7000hr engine. The FAA limits them to 3000 hrs.

Most A or B models have a new avionics panel. Not for the look cool factor but for the factor that taking out the stock radios takes about 150lbs of weight out of the nose. That alone is worth the new radios. I wouldn't replace the radar though. Some of the older radars can give you an xray scan of a guy on the ramp. Ground safety was not really a keyword back then.

 

[TurboS7]

Haven't read all the post but I would go for the LR-24 just for the joy of flying. Awesome machine and a heck of a lot of fun, even if you have to land for fuel every 1000nm or so.

 

[Rick1128]

The reason for modding an airplane is usualy an owner operator that likes their airplane and has had it for a long time. We ran into timed out engines after owning the plane for 10 years. We went with the walter's because even though the downtime is longer the cost savings by having no hot sections or fuel nozzel inspections are well worth it. Also at the end of 3000hrs you take the engine off and for 68k you get a new one.

There is a reason why Garetts were not put on any other King Air than the B-100. they are heavy, noisey, and a pain to maintain. Any engine that has more gears than a grandfather clock is just prone to more problems. the Pt-6 or walter is a simple engine that is ment to take serious abuse. The walter takes the abuse to the next level because it's a 7000hr engine. The FAA limits them to 3000 hrs.

Most A or B models have a new avionics panel. Not for the look cool factor but for the factor that taking out the stock radios takes about 150lbs of weight out of the nose. That alone is worth the new radios. I wouldn't replace the radar though. Some of the older radars can give you an xray scan of a guy on the ramp. Ground safety was not really a keyword back then.

Interesting. In all the time I have flown both engines. I have had no lose failures in the Garrett and three in PT6's. The reason I was given for Beech not going to Garretts for everything is the KA community didn't like the fact that the B100 didn't fly like a "King Air". The engine is noisy, but is reliable and more fuel efficent than the PT6.

There are still many A's and B's out there with original radios or early 70's updates. And I would definately replace the radar. Repair costs are now getting almost as high as replacement with a new up to date unit. Replacement of the radios is not only to reduce the empty weight, but also to increase the capability of the aircraft.

And resalability is something to consider. Because someday a more capable aircraft may be desired. I have found that engine mods decrease the desirability of many aircraft.

 

[sky37d]

Best of all worlds. King Air 300. Cabin is big, 295TAS and you can pick them up in the low $1m's. Overpowered. Load the seats + fuel and you can still go.

But is the 300 a single pilot plane??

 

[Diesel]

Engine mod's might decrease the resale value until someone actually flies one. Then they can't get the smile off of their face. We had old doggy -21 engines that couldn't get the plane out of it's own way. FL180 was a dream because getting up there was a nightmare.

Put the 750's on it and what a difference. FL250 is where it loves to be now. Same fuel flows up high. Down low I just fly the fuel flow instead of torque. Picked up 47kt airspeed on the mod too. It's tough to argue with those numbers. Most mod's people don't want to be the one making the initial investment on an unkown.

Once that is done and the mod has been a proven then people are alot quicker to buy one allready done. Especially if they can feel it or touch it. I do a lot of demoing with the aircraft and people just love it. Doing a single engine climb to the 20's really is an impressive display.

I've got a friend who owns a B100 that did the -10 conversion on it and loves it. He really did pick up a lot of speed with it. I think garetts are one of those engines either you love or you hate. You sure can hear them coming.

The 300 is a sp type.

 

[Diesel]

I forgot to add replacing the radio's doesn't really add capability unless you're talking GPS. The radios that were in ours were so powerful it was nuts. They were airline style radios with the crystals for transmitting. You can just imagine how much power they put out when they were transmiting. Back then though that was state of the art airline stuff.

 

[mzaharis]

I figure I can upgrade engines first and then the panel.

Are you considering the Blackhawk engine swap, too?

 

[banned username 2]

Are you considering the Blackhawk engine swap, too?

I was parked next to one of those in KPNE a few months ago, holy noisy!!!

 

[mzaharis]

I was parked next to one of those in KPNE a few months ago, holy noisy!!!

Interesting - given that they're both flavors of PT-6, you'd think it wouldn't make much of a difference.

 

[prpjt]

The C90 Falcon was parked next to probably had the Kilo Alpha 290 conversion, which is a TPE331 -10 conversion.

The Blackhawk conversion is PT6 - 135's

With the KA290 engines they claim 285 ktas @ 280. Its a 1000hp conversion. Initial climb rate of 3000fpm

The Black Hawk is a 750hp conversion that should get you 280 ktas @200.

 

[banned username 2]

The C90 Falcon was parked next to probably had the Kilo Alpha 290 conversion, which is a TPE331 -10 conversion.

Oh, you know what? I think you are right... It was a Garrett conversion and came with all the associated noise! Kilo Alpha does sound familiar...

 

[seethru]

I've looked at the Blackhawk conversion before on their website. One concern I have is how does this increase in airpseed affect the structural integrity of the aircraft? It is a sizable leap in performance, not simply a 5-10 knot increase.

Does anybody else have that concern, or maybe it's not really a problem.

Thanks,

Greg

 

[mzaharis]

I've looked at the Blackhawk conversion before on their website. One concern I have is how does this increase in airpseed affect the structural integrity of the aircraft? It is a sizable leap in performance, not simply a 5-10 knot increase.

Does anybody else have that concern, or maybe it's not really a problem.

Thanks,

Greg

I could be wrong (this is purely from what I've read, not any personal experience), but since they flat-rate the engines at 550hp (same as stock), I don't believe that the airframe sees much increase in the max indicated airspeed. It's just that, because it can hold 550hp to a higher altitude, you can carry a higher true airspeed up high.

That's about how I read the following chart. The maximum CAS for a stock C90A is 213, while the maximum for a Blackhawk C90A is 220 (slightly hot conditions - 84F).

http://www.blackhawk.aero/xpkingairmaxcruisecomp.htm

Probably the best indication would be to see whether Raytheon starts "beefing up" their aircraft structurally - the new King Air C90GT is basically the same as a "Blackhawked" C90B - substituting the -135 for the -21s. If the empty weight doesn't go up, then it appears that even Raytheon doesn't think that it needs any beefing up.

 

[BE200Driver]

The KA 300 is single pilot.