Which King Air do you think?

[vetteracer]

I work for an air ambulance operation, and we have 2 BE-B200's. The 300-350 would be nice, but unless you are part 91, (we are 135), the balanced field length issue is a problem for many of the small towns we service. You can get a 300-350 cheaper then a BE-B200, for the above reasons. The 200, no type, no balanced field length, makes it desirable for 135 operations. Before my time, we ran 90's and the guys hated them. Hot days, short fields, were a temp-out, no torque problem.

Just my .02

Mark

 

[IFollowRoads]

Go with the 90. That thing is impossible to get out of CG.

Don't quote him on that

 

[Trogdor]

Don't quote him on that

Well maybe not impossible, but you'd really have to try hard.

 

[jergar999]

You should really eliminate the A100 from the running. Really. It's all the speed of the 90 with the hourly cost of the 200, coupled with the performance of a Cessna 414.

As far as the 90 vs. 200 argument, the typical mission profile should settle that.

Someone on this forum once said that all the good turboprops out there were still being built and sold, and with the exception of Commanders I would have to agree.

 

[ultrarunner]

If I was in bad enough shape that I had to be airmailed in an ambulance, I'd be getting in a JET.

But if your patients don't care about speed, go cheap and get a 90.

 

[Say Again Over]

Wasn't there a big operator in Mesa, AZ that went to the PC-12 with double LIFE_PORTS?

 

[SpeedMetal]

if you are doing 500-1000 nm trips and want to get to altitude fast and cruise at 300 ktas consistently you would want to go with the 300. the only downside is it requires a type rating. if i remember right that will run you about 15k give or take. you can top it off with 3600 lbs of fuel and climb straight to the mid 30's and burn around 80 gph. 10,000 and below you can consistently do 250 kts. and not be pushed out of the way by the jet traffic. you can figure your direct operating cost is around $700-$800 respectively. i dont have much time in the 200's but they are a great airplane also. i was always told that if you take a 300 and fly it 2000 feet higher than the 200 you will be burning the same amount of fuel...... doing 50 more kts.
if you would like some more numbers feel free to PM me and i would be glad to help you out.

my $.02
Speed.

 

[Tinstaafl]

Australia's Royal Flying Doctor Service has chosen to replace many of their 200s with PC12s. They say they're cheaper, have more room, cargo door as standard, faster & can lift at least as much.

OTH, someone I know swears by Conquest IIs for all the above reasons (except cargo door, I think)

 

[Say Again Over]

Conquest II is a piece of crap! IMO it's not too easy to fly either, if you thinks it's just a twin Cessna with turbine engines, think again.