Which King Air do you think?

[Thedude]

I would say the 200 also. Bigger engines and cruises a little faster. Just get one that has a good vapor cycle a/c for gnd ops. If memory serves, I believe the 200 has an eletric VCM instead of a belt driven one.

 

[hyflyt560]

300. Fast, can bulk it out with full fuel. 200 if you don't want to worry about type ratings. Not sure if the 90 can be fitted with the cargo door, but the 200 can.

200's came with electric or belt driven compressors.

 

[Say Again Over]

Area of operation being the big factor, have flown both, from the pilot's standpoint it's hard to beat the 200, this allows room for a family member if it is desired, 200 also great for the odd long range transport. Are you responding to a wide range of airports or are you mainly serving an outlying facility based nearby, I was based in ABQ and flew throughout NM, in an early 90, this was fine for patient transport, the other company I worked for operated the 200 with double LIFE-PORT systems, flying two Pt's didn't happen too often but it did occur, we also had a modified isolete for newborn transport that fit on the LIFE_PORT.

 

[dhc8fo]

Thanks so far guys, keep it coming though. You made me realize I forgot to ask them a very important question... which is how far their flights will typically be, so good points about considering the 90.

 

[hyflyt560]

With the 300, at max. gross takeoff weight, unless the temp is >40C and above 4000' PA, you really don't need to worry too much about reasonable climb gradients or Accel/stop numbers...not to say you don't want to pull out the charts. Additionally, below 10,000' you'll have to pull the power back to stay below 250 and you'll cruise at 290-295 TAS at FL280 (ours isn't RVSM due to a Chelton installation).

 

[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.