What is the ceiling on the 200? Any of the legacy 200s equipped with RVSM? Is it worth it?

I think all the G1000Nxi are RVSM, no? With the -52/-61 engines it will happily go to 350 if need be. Cabin is pretty high though, so I only do that to take advantage of raging tailwinds.

My most common altitude is 280 - 300.

Diff on a 200 is 6.1 and diff on a B200 is 6.5. The extra 0.4 psi makes a difference.

-42s run out of steam at FL280, so marginally worth it to go higher. -61s or -52s make more power at altitude, so it is worth it.

Probably why you don't see many 200s with anything bigger than a -42. -52s on a B200 is the real business, but -61s are really good also!

Going to leave this here

No, I'm the "some guy on the internet claims something I've never heard of so I'm not believing it until there is a reference".

You say a lot of things. I've learned from past experience some of them are apocryphal.

Really, it is an interesting story, I would love to see the accident reports and AD. I can't find any AD that is remotely close to this, and the entire Commander SB list doesn't mention anything close to this....

Diff on a 200 is 6.1 and diff on a B200 is 6.5. The extra 0.4 psi makes a difference.

-42s run out of steam at FL280, so marginally worth it to go higher. -61s or -52s make more power at altitude, so it is worth it.

Probably why you don't see many 200s with anything bigger than a -42. -52s on a B200 is the real business, but -61s are really good also!

We should all aspire to be that guy!


There is a long, rich history of oral story telling and information sharing in aviation. A lot of it is complete BS.

I have heard of the Commander tail cap issue and solution from a completely different source. I have not heard of an AD for it, but I haven’t looked into it deeply.

If I wanted to know a lot more about it, I’d call Bruce Byerly.

No, I'm the "some guy on the internet claims something I've never heard of so I'm not believing it until there is a reference".

You say a lot of things. I've learned from past experience some of them are apocryphal.

Really, it is an interesting story, I would love to see the accident reports and AD. I can't find any AD that is remotely close to this, and the entire Commander SB list doesn't mention anything close to this....

Flying into or out of S Florida on a weather day requires a special skill, and I don’t have it. I always seem to get screwed and never know the magic altitude or route to request. Sounds like you did a nice job using the capabilities of a versatile plane to manage it.

I didn't start out not believing you, just wanted to see where I could find out more. But you got so defensive you started accusing me....

There is nothing wrong with being wrong. I shoot from the hip sometimes myself and often end up admitting I was wrong.

I really do want to hear more about this failure mode.

Vmo can be set by a number of things that aren't basic aerodynamics like windshields, props, gear doors, etc.

Mmo is set mostly by aerodynamics such as airfoil shape and control surface behaviors. Flutter margins might be the primary reason in turboprops.

Nobody really knows exactly how the numbers are set outside of the design team unless they specify it which is rare. It could be as simple as the equipment they had to test the windshield only went up to 250 KIAS, so that's what they set Vmo to. Typically, the thinner the wing and the more stout the control surfaces, the higher Mmo. The MU2 has really stout wings and no ailerons, so it isn't surprising it can go to a higher Mmo.

Odd fact: If the MU2 Vmo had been lowered 1 knot, to 249 KIAS, it would not need a type rating in Canada. In Canada, type ratings are required for any plane capable of 250 KIAS or higher.

My Citation V numbers:

Stock: (11,200 lbs ZFW)

Vmo 261 KIAS below 8000 ft, 292 KIAS above 8000 ft
Mmo 0.755 Mach

Modified: (12,200 lbs ZFW)

Vmo 261 KIAS below 8000 ft, 276 KIAS above 8000 ft
Mmo 0.755 Mach

I have the ZFW increase mod (allows ~3000 lbs cabin load, more than I can ever use).

Mike C.

I didn't accuse you at all, I just asked if you were a if you can't find it on the internet it isn't true guy... that was actually a reference to Mike, who I expected to accuse me of sharing false info. So I apologize if I was defensive, you have to admit that much of what I post gets assailed and usually with demands to back it up with internet proof!

I've googled this before and I've never found anything of any substance, so that's why I expected backlash. I wasn't wrong and wasn't shooting from the hip, that's not why I was defensive, I was defensive because of the environment BT has become.

I've asked Dave Amis to get involved in Beechtalk, and maybe Bruce can share as well.

I'm skeptical because there does not seem to be any AD record or Service Bulletin record of this. I don't use Google for those.

Next would be to search the NTSB records...

It’s not that low; he’s just high. The MMO of Mach 0.52 (Vmo 259 KIAS @ 15,000 ft) is higher than the Vmo on an M600, the MU-2, the 441, the Commander….

They’re all within a few knots of each other but the King Air is highest.