Questions for King Air 90 Drivers:

[HMR]

Can any of you C90 pilots help me out? My buddy's looking at a few 90's in the 1995-2000 vintage. I used to fly a 2002 C90 but can't recall the performance specs. It always seemed like a dog to me but the salesmen are claiming some more impressive #'s than I remember (what a surprise ).

Our usual mission:
700nm, Pilot, 1-2 pax and 2 BIG dogs, crossing over the Sierras along the way.

What altitudes would you typically file?
What (approx) would be the TAS and Fuel Burn?

Can the 90 cruise @ FL250? Higher?
What kind of climb rates do you see in the flight levels?
At what altitudes is it most "comfortable"?

Again, I used to be a PT135 captain on the 90 but spent a lot more time in the 200. The 90 always seemed like a big Baron; fun to fly, built like a tank but kinda underpowered.

Thanks!
HMR

 

[TimsKeeper]

The C90B has considerably better performance than the straight 90's. It's been awhile so I don't recall exact specifics but you can get to FL250 and a bit higher if you give it a little time, however the cabin will be, if i remember right, about 7000 feet at FL250. Also, your cruise speed will be around FL200 will be 245-250.

For a lot of high flying, you might want to look into one of the conversions out there; blackhawk, etc. The numbers get better than the stock 200's from what I understand.

 

[340drvr]

C90A likes the low 20's for FL, best at FL230-240, will do FL250, especially if light. Yeah, at FL250 cabin pressure is getting close to max.
Fuel burn approximately 400-500 lbs/hr, maybe just under 400 at the highest cruise altitudes. We flight plan ours for 225 kts TAS.
The C90B might do just a bit better, and the Blackhawk conversion adds a lot of performance. I guess you could look at F90's, faster, but older.

 

[Fly High]

C90A likes the low 20's for FL, best at FL230-240, will do FL250, especially if light. Yeah, at FL250 cabin pressure is getting close to max.
Fuel burn approximately 400-500 lbs/hr, maybe just under 400 at the highest cruise altitudes. We flight plan ours for 225 kts TAS.
The C90B might do just a bit better, and the Blackhawk conversion adds a lot of performance. I guess you could look at F90's, faster, but older.

Our 90s like 17,000-20,000 the best. You get the better performance at those altitudes and the plane is happy at those altitudes. If you get above 23,000 it seems to get a bit mushy on the controls. They will do 25,000 but from 23,000 up to 25,000 loaded you will do about 500-700 fpm. 25,000 is max on the dif and if I remember right the Alt light comes on at about 26,000. We plan ours at 225 but that is after we took off the 4 blade props. It seemed to gain about 10 knots or so when we put the 3 bladed props on. I have quite a bit of time in the E-90s as well and I liked the E-90s performance, it seemed as sluggish as a 90 when the fuel is topped off but then you have to remember that it holds about 100 gallons more fuel that the 90s.

 

[HMR]

Thanks for the info.

We looked at the Black Hawk conversion but the price is in the same range as a used TBM700. The TBM smokes the Black Hawk performance-wise for our typical mission and has much lower DOC's. I love the F90's but they're getting a little long in the tooth. If we could save $500-600K on a clean, late model C90 vs. a TBM I think it would make up for the performance deficiencies.

Fly High- You saw an increase in speed with the 3-blade props? I had the opposite experience in the KA200. I thought the 4-blades were supposed to be better?

Thanks, again.

 

[Fly High]

Fly High[/B]- You saw an increase in speed with the 3-blade props? I had the opposite experience in the KA200. I thought the 4-blades were supposed to be better?

Thanks, again.

Yes Sir! The 4 bladed props gave better climb performance and were quieter but the 3 bladed props are faster in cruise. The 3 bladed props are also easier on the brakes when on the ground because 3 bladed props need to idle at a lower N1. We have 3 and 4 bladed 200s and the 3 bladed also has a faster TAS but does not climb as good as the 4 bladed ones. A 5 knot change that we noticed was when we went from the old exhausts on the 200s to the new/modern ones plus there was a lot less soot on the nacs.

Later

 

[some_dude]

If 700 miles is really your typical trip, why not get a Citation II or a Lear 31? Much nicer on that sort of trip!

 

[HMR]

If 700 miles is really your typical trip, why not get a Citation II or a Lear 31? Much nicer on that sort of trip!

Ha! Trust me, I've tried to talk my buddy into the Citation. He refuses to believe it would be an easy transition for him. Can't do the Lear, the plane needs to be Single Pilot and short-field capable plus the DOC's on the Lear are more than my buddy needs to spend. The 700nm trip is flown twice a month to go from the ski house to the beach house. A few years ago we were doing it in a C210!

I can just about guarantee the plane after this one will be a CJ1. I wish he'd save himself the trouble and buy one now.

PS- Thanks, again, for the Falcon 50 info awhile back.

 

[HMR]

Some more questions...

Can any of you guys give me an idea of time to climb from SL to FL200 (ISA) at MGTOW in a C90B?

My C90B books are long gone (thought I'd never need them again!).

 

[prpjt]

Plan on 18 or 19 minutes to 20k. 235 TAS at that altitude. We recently sold our 1997 90B, I still have a few books if you need some performance pages. Another option would be for me just to send you a recurrent manual and your buddy could mail it back after he's finished with it.