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.

The King Air far outsold the 441 in their heyday, the 441 banked on efficiency and performance at the cost of cabin height. To a business making short trips, the cabin was more important, or so the checkbooks said.

Today however I think the main reason they are more popular is because they are more popular- that is, they only made a few hundred 441s and as you mention at any given time there just may not be a good one for sale. If you ask the average broker about a 441 they'll usually respond with misinformation (props don't feather and they are loud inside are the most common).

On a per trip basis, a Citation II was within spitting distance cost wise so in our case a King Air just did not make sense. The range, speed, efficiency, and support of a 441 is unmatched by anything else. The MU-2 / Commander come close, and can be a better deal due to the lower buy-in.

A friend has a Citation II (pics earlier) and his business also operates a B200. They make almost daily flights in the B200 that are nearly all <400nm. In that case a B200 is perfect, people are constantly in and out of the aircraft, the extra 40 knots is not very useful, and they're based in a small market where having easier access to B200 pilots is occasionally of some use. The ramp presence also helps make non-pilots feel more comfortable, I imagine.

Regarding the computer, like many things it is nice if not necessary and amazing for a plane engineered in the 1970s. With new paint and interior, looking at the nacelles and panel a non-pilot would believe it was built in 2020. It's even more amazing when you compare it to something contemporary like a 1970s coupe deville. The previous owner's pilot would press start, push the levers to the wall, and pull them to flight idle as late as possible for landing. Horrible technique, but that's one of the advantages - they are more tolerant of bad pilots. If everything is working, it's driving a car in 3D. A 340 is like doing calculus on a tightrope by comparison (but the insurance company wants far more hours and training to press the start button in a 441).

For those who have owned/ operated both, how does the build quality between the B200 and the 441 compare?

Smooth!

I think anyone who has even seen both can compare- B200 has a much heavier build. That’s good and bad. 441 flies like most other twin Cessnas, like a truck (“stable IFR platform”). B200 is more responsive, for the few minutes at either end of each flight the autopilot is off.

My grandfather bought a new B90, and thought Cessnas were garbage. Probably telling that to someone up there right now.

At the end of the day though, that’s really only obvious to mechanics as most of the avionics and interior have all been replaced. I don’t see the military switching away from King Airs any time soon though.

One other major benefit to a 441 over a B200 is the huge nose baggage. We rarely have anything in the cabin other than a carry on equivalent with things you don’t want to freeze like toothpaste.

Smooth!

If there was an award for the best engine nacelle design, the 441 would win it.

Very smooth, aerodynamic, no stacks sticking out, the air flow through the entire system is well designed.

Mike C.

Going on year 10 of C441 ownership. 1 AOG in 10 years, this fall with a blown diode in the Emergency bus disabling AP and AOA indicators and throwing generators offline. Had to fly mechanic from FL to BWI after local mechanics ran out of ideas. (Simple fix, but labor wasn't cheap).
Beechcraft is built more rugged and has a more "quality" feel, but the Conquest II is a pilots airplane, where the B200 is better for sitting in the back. Both are great airplanes.
The -10 331's are derated to 715HP, and they will clock over 1000HP on the dyno, so there is a lot of untapped reserve power, all limited by the airframe. I've taken off a few times by accident with the torque limiters off and it will climb over 5000fpm if you don't pull the levers back or turn the limiters back on.
Diff is 6.3, so the typical LRC set up for me is 290-310 to keep the cabin under 10K, higher to top weather if needed. Most of my long trips are VT to South FL/ Bahamas.
if you search for Max Nerheims 441 threads in here you'll find his 7hr flight from Alaska to Arizona, nuff said about range.
Its a great airplane and easy to fly. 1200# full fuel useful load.
Parts can at times be difficult to source, and can be expensive, but all baked in the maintenance has been reasonable.

This ^

Extreme Hard Landing - Cessna 441 Conquest II
[youtube]https://youtu.be/W967YTx9z4I[/youtube]
Dangerous, hard, and extremely bouncy landing performed by Cessna 441 Conquest II N17TJ. The impact appears to have damaged the aircraft’s landing gear, as the nose landing gear vibrated dangerously when the aircraft was braking. The plane also seemed to struggle exiting the runway, was seen applying power, reverse thrust, and shutting down, and restarting an engine before being able to backtrack off the runway.
This landing was the hardest I have ever seen at CZNL. I hope this nice general aviation turboprop aircraft is alright.

Make sure to stick around to 6:40 to see the landing in slow motion and the crazy nose landing gear shake!

This ^

The computers limit them to 635hp in the 441, the engine is rated at 900hp (-6 was 715hp). I believe the 615hp is a certification limit driven by the size of the rudder, not sure on the 900hp - could be the gearbox. Ours temp out around 20,000 - 22,000 ft.

Attached is from "The History of North American Small Gas Turbine Aircraft Engines" available on Amazon. It details the development of the engine and describes some of the engineering that permits the nacelle to be so clean.

Note that both the PT6 and TPE331 are reverse flow designs, which has nothing to do with which direction the engine happens to be bolted to the airframe.

Yes, the term reverse flow trips a lot of people up.

Sort of.

The PT6 has the intake at the rear, exhaust at the front, so the OVERALL flow is reverse of plane direction (except in pusher configuration like the Piaggio). Ironically, the reverse flow combustor in the PT6 actually has the air moving front to rear.

The only part of the TPE331 that is reverse flow is the annular combustor. Outside of that, the air generally moves front to back (except in pusher configurations like the MQ9 Reaper).

So it is correct to say they both have reverse flow COMBUSTORS, the PT6 is generally mounted so that it is overall reverse low and the TPE331 is generally forward flow.

Mike C.

Here is some TPE 331-10 info from Honeywell.