King Air F90-1 Info

[cptsesso]

Looking for some numbers: Typical cruise TAS and altitude, hourly fuel burn, likes, dislikes, etc.

Thanks.

 

[grumman38]

260 tas,85 to 90 gph, climbs like a BOH @ sea level but falls on its face above 18.0. I typically don't plan on much more than 25.0 @ most temps and weights(not a climber @ higher altitudes). Likes? Looks cool! Its a KingAir! Dislikes?Noisy, poor climb at mid altitudes (needs higher aspect ratio wing) poor payload 316 lbs with full fuel! Our is not a dash one but does have the cowl mods. Does not land as well as the 200, 300, or 90, maybe its me? For my money I would mod a straight 90 with the 135 Pratt engines.

 

[falconpilot]

I agree with the above. I fly one quite a bit on contract for a guy. I never go above 21K, cause it really start to peeter out. Landing wise, I think it lands great. I dont use full flaps, I usually use the notch before full flaps. Im having a brain fart and cant remember the number. I want to say its 60 flaps or something like that. That may be way off, but its the setting before full flaps.

 

[Prof. ATP]

Gee, I logged on to see if I could get some info on the F90.

A local company just bought one and hired me (pending insurance approval) to give their pilot IOE. They think the insurance will be happy, even though I have no F90 time (all my King Air time is C90 or B200).

I was told that it has the same systems and speeds as a B200, although of course the weights are different. Is this correct? What else should I look out for?

Their guy will go to FSI and is a pretty sharp pilot, so I mostly plan to have fun.

 

[CelticCitation]

June 2006 Business & Commercial Aviation

has a great article in the 20/Twenty article on the last page. Prof, if you can't find it, I have a copy.

 

[tracearabians]

Contact coloneldan. He flew one for a few years.

Looking for some numbers: Typical cruise TAS and altitude, hourly fuel burn, likes, dislikes, etc.

Thanks.

 

[Prof. ATP]

has a great article in the 20/Twenty article on the last page. Prof, if you can't find it, I have a copy.

Gee, I even read that article. I must be getting old.

ps no interesting mail today, if you know what I mean. I am waiting as fast as I can!

 

[b350capt]

Its a terrible runway hog as well, takeoff distances at max gross and anything above ISA are horrid. But if i had to buy a 90, i would still by a F90. Makes the 90's fun.....

 

[Bandit60]

I have flown Kingair 90, F90,A100,B100, 200 and the F90 was horrible just a bit better than the Kingair A100. I would not recommend the F90 to anyone.

Burned the fuel of the 200 flew at speeds just above that of the C90 and was not a good handling airplane in crosswinds.

 

[b350capt]

Bandit is right about the crosswinds....the short wing / aspect ratio differences between the c90 and the f90 do make it a bit squirrley. Having the tripple fed electric system and 200 series fuel make it a much better choice system wise than the c90. I'm not so sure i agree with the speed being just above the c90. Ours routinely would true around 260 or 265 kts in normal cruise (255 to 260 in hot summer days). Our c90 would true around 235 to 240 if we were lucky. The fuel burn is just about the same as the max econ cruise of the 200. Its one of those airplanes such as the MU2 / Turbine Commanders, 421 etc....Those who love them, love them. Those who hate them, hate them. Theres not a real middle ground...its a niche airplane.

 

[Bandit60]

Bandit is right about the crosswinds....the short wing / aspect ratio differences between the c90 and the f90 do make it a bit squirrley. Having the tripple fed electric system and 200 series fuel make it a much better choice system wise than the c90. I'm not so sure i agree with the speed being just above the c90. Ours routinely would true around 260 or 265 kts in normal cruise (255 to 260 in hot summer days). Our c90 would true around 235 to 240 if we were lucky. The fuel burn is just about the same as the max econ cruise of the 200. Its one of those airplanes such as the MU2 / Turbine Commanders, 421 etc....Those who love them, love them. Those who hate them, hate them. Theres not a real middle ground...its a niche airplane.

To clairfy the speeds...The C90 I flew was jetcaled which brought the itt up which made it go faster and the F90 I flew had a wingspar straps that made it go slower..therefore the difference between the two planes where about 5 knots in speed but alot more fuel burn on the F90

 

[coloneldan]

I flew a straight F-90 for about 6 years. It has a few good points and several bad ones. First of all, it's a Kingair, general handling is good. (As long as you are below about FL220.) It has the 200 fuel system with lower quantities, of course. The triple fed bus is a good idea. Sort of a spare, redundant, back up, extra. A/C, heat, pressurization is normal for Kingairs. As I recall, we usually cruised around 250 kts.

Now for the bad. Short wings and fuselage, with great big tail. Makes it a little squirrely for a Kingair, but not as bad as some airplanes. The fuel burn was not that much less than a 200. The airplane was really a technology testbed for some of the 300 systems, like the triple fed bus. That means many of the parts are only found on the F-90. Read that as expensive and hard to locate. The thing that really aggrivated me was it will NOT climb above FL 190 in icing conditions. If you are at FL 220 and enter ice, it will stay there. If you are at FL 190 and incounter ice, you either stay there or decend. Minimum speed in ice is 140 IAS and with the Ice Vanes out, you aren't going anywhere. I tried several times. I would start a climb, go a few hundred feet then have to decend back to where I started when it slowed to 140. Granted, I used to use a slightly reduced power setting to save the hot sections, but not enough to make that much difference. Grumman38 is right. It climbs like a Bat Out of H-E-double hocky sticks at low altitude. By the time you get to 10,000, it will stop impressing a C-310 pilot. Also, if you operate out of the SouthEast, your going to love the summer. The engines will temp out long before you get to max torque during takeoff. Get in the air and get some ram effect and you're back in business. As long as I flew it, I only had it to FL 240 twice. By the time you get to 220, it is really wallowing around in the sky. I have heard that the F-90-1 is much better at altitude, but I have never flown one.

One thing to think about is the price. When they were new, they cost almost the same as a 200. I haven't looked at prices in a long time, but the last time I checked, they were only slightly higher than any other 90. In aviation, generally, you get what you pay for. There's a reason they are relatively cheap.

After re-reading your original post, I think I may have given you much more information than you were looking for, so here is the short version. It's been a long time, but as I recall, I flightplanned for 250 kts. Fuel flow is about the same as a 200. You won't be using the Aux tanks if you have many passengers. Don't flightplan for anything over FL 220. (Unless the -1 really is that much better.) Other than that, it's pretty much a Kingair.

 

[Diesel]

Im currently running a modded B-90.

We flightplan for 247kts at 240 to 250. I've had it up to 270 but the pressurization can't handle it.

I'd look into a modded B or C series.

We flightplan for 500lbs an hour maybe a little more.

 

[Say Again Over]

We operated a small FBO once upon a time with a wide variety of King Air size aircraft, all charter customers disliked the squirrelly ride in the F-90 and made requests to be on alternate aircraft, I have not flown it.