Which King Air do you think?

[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.