Just curious, why wouldn’t a King Air be in the mix for this mission? Pretty sure most 90’s could do this mission.

Example trip: KPWK to KFXE, 1027 nm.

On an tailwind day, the Meridian will do it, but not with any real headwinds and you have to allocate some fuel for Chicago and Florida maneuvering at each end. A faster airplane is less affected by the headwinds.

My MU2 would do that non stop in 60 knot headwinds. That won't be 100%, but maybe 70-80% non stop reliability. Maybe that's enough? I had 1200 lbs useful load full fuel, so that would never be a problem.

The trip to Long Island is under 700 nm. Maybe on a horrific headwind day coming back that isn't non stop for a Meridian, but easy for an MU2.

If the trip is KGYY to KSRQ, 885 nm, things get pretty close to 100% non stop in the MU2, so your exact trip will dictate the outcome.


Very nice shop in Green Bay (Jet Air) that really knows MU2s. While taking it to an "MU2 shop" is advised, you don't have to go very often.

40 in MU2 years is 15 in Piper years, roughly.

Mike C.

Winter headwinds KFRG to KPWK can regularly exceed 120 knots in the 20s.

Check out Tuesday morning this week at FL240:

The King Air 90 relatively slow speed makes that painful.

Even in my MU2 at 300 knots, 120 knot headwinds were painful.

Mike C.

Winter headwinds KFRG to KPWK can regularly exceed 120 knots in the 20s.

The King Air 90 relatively slow speed makes that painful.

Even in my MU2 at 300 knots, 120 knot headwinds were painful.

Mike C.

for me the King Air seems riskier than a jet. Too many crashes taking off for me to feel comfortable. Taking off is the most stressful phase of flight for me. I don't need extra stress there. And with a jet it's easy peasy.

I know there are a lot of KA out there and they have a lot of safe hours. So settle down. LOL just for me from an emotional standpoint I feel safer dealing with an airborne issue than an issue above the runway. most of the jet issues are either landing or departure. I "feel" more in control in those stages. When a plane snap rolls above the runway thats scary.

Again just my personal opinion and feeling. Not trying to start a fight with the KA guys. Hehe

Mike

Only because it is.

The KA is better than a piston twin by a country mile, and the jet is the same level of safety advance all over again.

They departed VFR in a jet! They're guaranteeing a slow step climb, especially with a low ceiling. No wonder they sucked down so much fuel.

Not only did they not get CAA, they didn't even seem to get a based customer discount.

I do that all the time, but I live in the rural Midwest.

I wonder why they didn't go IFR? That seemed strange especially coming from a towered field like KFFZ. They seemed to be talking to ATC near KSEZ, too. Why not just be IFR all the way?

There is an interesting issue with the jet having to do with departing an uncontrolled field and picking up IFR clearances in the air. The jet climbs so fast that a 3000 ft ceiling is NOT ENOUGH to get an IFR clearance. This is particularly true single pilot.

You have two options, takeoff VFR and throttle back and level off below the clouds and pick up your IFR before climbing, or get your clearance on the ground. I find that I am getting my clearance on the ground more often than I used to for this reason, and to reduce my workload right after takeoff by having it all loaded (though I usually have that anyway from flight plan email alert).

I saw a few things this pilot did which I thought was a bit strange. For example, he braced his left hand against the panel to move the throttles. Are the cables sticking or frictive? Does he know about the friction adjustment?

Mike C.

Concerning fuel stops in the Meridian when coming from a piston. Fuel stops are less painful. You come down at 1500+ fpm from altitude with no cooling or ear issues. You do need to let the PT6 cool a little on the ground, open the cowls point in the wind about 15 min is good. A dry motor run can cool it a little faster. But hot warm cold the PT6 starts up every single time the same way. Starting a turbocharged piston on a quick stop can sometimes be a challenge. Then take off, back to 1500+ fpm climbing at a higher TAS than a turbocharged piston in the climb. So not quite the same stress and time penalty as a piston. That said, I and most of my pax prefer non-stop trips when given a choice, but you pay for range in a turbine.

Drop down to FL180 on Tuesday's theoretical flight and you save an hour because of a 60kt drop in headwinds. You can likewise do that in an MU-2, but if age is a concern there are only so many options. I know I'm biased, btw.

Owning the aviation equivalent of a Merkur is cool and all, but sometimes people just need a Camry.

I noticed that too. Odd.

The ceilings were low with steeply rising obscured terrain less than 60 seconds away in the direction of flight. I thought the VFR departure was very odd. They passed within sight of this CFIT crash of a VFR departure from that exact same field.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2011/11/d ... -into.html

That much speed change in that little of altitude means one thing: turbulence. You will get lots of air shearing and resultant vortexes. This may require you slow down.

Further, the FL180 fuel flows will be higher, so range is still an issue despite less headwind.

I've been on the receiving side of these winds and it is no fun. You can't go higher, winds too fast, you can't go lower, fuel flow too high, and you can't go max speed, bumps too strong.

You buy a fast airplane not for the tailwind days, but for the headwinds days.

Mike C.

A King Air on takeoff losing an engine with autofeather doing it's job isn't a big deal, the same scenario without autofeather is a huge deal.

You are right, way too many King Air accidents lately. We think most could have been prevented, in fact some were flat unnecessary, but others leave more questions than answers.

Check those friction locks.

The jet is a margin safer, especially on takeoff, no doubt about it.

I have done three or four 250nm flights this year at 4000AGL or less to avoid headwinds at altitude

The nice thing about the turboprop is you can still fly low without a huge fuel penalty if you choose, I don't think you can do this with a jet