I’m not understanding the speed either. 2x the hp as a B36TC and essentially the same speed? Makes no sense.

Douglas wrote:
I was comparing speed and payload, not volume. Obviously the King Air is bigger, but its not faster,and will not carry as much, and it is far more expensive to operate.

I get it, the very first, old King Air. But that’s not really what is flying now. It’s kind of like saying Fords are slow and showing data for the Model A.
We operate 3 older (1985-1991) -21 powered King Airs and by turboprop standards, they are very slow. But they do make 235-240 knots with useful load of 3380#.

Agreed with Thomas. check out this one:. https://www.controller.com/listings/air ... ng-air-e90

Blackhawk 135's on an E for about the same $$... 474 gallons of fuel and will true at 265 all day long. Harpoon is way cool but will require a special owner to want something so unique.

Different beasts. Costs 30k to do a gear swing in a KA, probably higher ramp fees, etc etc

I've heard this number tossed out for the gear OH but I've also heard some guys do this in house for a lot cheaper.

I've heard this number tossed out for the gear OH but I've also heard some guys do this in house for a lot cheaper.

Definitely “different beasts”.
As an aside, I paid right around the same much as the asking price for this Harpoon for the aircraft I fly most (seen in my avatar photo)...an MU-2-25-10 2.5 years ago. About a 1200-1400 mile range with a nice cabin (albeit loud) and good cruise speed (two days ago it was cold at FL250 and I was seeing 320kts TAS at 97% engine speed which is that plane’s “cruise” setting). My family likes the cabin much more than my prior plane (Aerostar). Maintenance is certainly going to be more than a Harpoon, but if you’re willing to go with older planes, some of the older twin turboprops (King Airs, Merlin, Commanders, MU-2’s, Conquest etc) out there can be very good buys with reasonably good maintenance costs. Obviously, running two engines costs more, but depending on your mission, it may be worth it.

Alright, let’s be honest, how many of us have said we’d love to have a Turbine Air or Tradewinds turbine A or B36 conversion “if only it were pressurized”?

Well here you go ...

I’ve got a straight 58 with 550s. Holds 840#s with full fuel, at 36 gallons per hour at 8500, I see 205 kts. I’d like pressurization but 600k?

Art

Harpoon is cool but $600K? I don't think so. I'd pay $300K for it but even that price will take a special buyer. I never have bought the spend money to save money argument with airplanes. "Hey, spend twice the money but save on fuel and ramp fees"...makes no sense.

Forgive me if this has been covered elsewhere, but what’s the difference between the Harpoon and Lightning? Engine choice? Lightning was developed in house by Beech while Harpoon was a third party?

I believe the Beech Lightning started with a PT6 but then they switched to a Garrett. It was never produced of course. Then there is the Baylescraft Lightning which is another 58P conversion using the Walters engine. So all told there were 3 different turbine aircraft based upon the 58P.

Jim
It was the opposite it started with a Garrett and dealers made Beech switch to PT6. Big mistake by Beech and dealers.... IMO