I asked this same question before but might get some more insight in this thread. Would anyone be concerned about 3200h PT6-61 engines that have never been overhauled and are 40 years old? Recent hots but the rest of the engine has never been opened. SOAPs ok.

On Chip's recommendation, I spent $0 at Stevens. I also spent $0 on white glove inspection service, and spent $0 on relocating the plane to a factory service center. I was ready to spend more, but he advised against it for my situation.

What he did do was listen to what I wanted and then he helped me buy the least expensive legal flying B200 sold in the past decade.

He's a wily one, that Chip. You gotta watch out for him.

Back on topic, I was just quoted under $700k to *purchase* a -42 with a fresh OH and no life-limited part past 30% cycles, so your overhaul should cost less.

Outright or exchange?

Outright or exchange?

One is a Nascar race car driver who has owned multiple aircraft.

The other is a corporation that operates two King Airs.

These decisions are complex and multi-faceted, but if you guys think that someone is spending over $7M for a King Air because they’re stupid, I have news for you.

Think of what kind of jet you can buy in that price range (or less) a new M2, a CJ3+, a CJ4, a Phenom 300, an XLS, yet every year 40 people buy brand new King Airs instead.

Why?

Well, you would have to ask them.

With the two clients I had who bought new… I did.

What, exactly, is that "job" my jet can't do? I'm curious what it is.

1991 King Air 350, same age as my plane, $2.4M.

https://www.controller.com/listing/for- ... p-aircraft

What does it do that mine doesn't?

Why would a King Air be more reliable than my plane given same age and similar hours?

I bet it costs more per mile to operate despite using less fuel, goes slower, goes lower, maybe carries slightly more, has antiquated avionics, less safe, etc.

Why does someone buy that over a Citation that would cost less and do more? People do buy them, so there must be a reason.

Mike C.

What, exactly, is that "job" my jet can't do? I'm curious what it is.

1991 King Air 350, same age as my plane, $2.4M.

https://www.controller.com/listing/for- ... p-aircraft

What does it do that mine doesn't?

Why would a King Air be more reliable than my plane given same age and similar hours?

I bet it costs more per mile to operate despite using less fuel, goes slower, goes lower, maybe carries slightly more, has antiquated avionics, less safe, etc.

Why does someone buy that over a Citation that would cost less and do more? People do buy them, so there must be a reason.

Mike C.

Mike C.,

Just a thought, instead of hijacking this thread and turning it into a Citation V thread, why not start a new thread titled “Citation V vs King Air 350”

What is the concern with flying a Citation 700 hours per year?

The Citation doesn't need 1000 hours to do the same job because it is faster, which is the whole point of business aviation.

Textron does offer a HUMP, a high utilization maintenance program, specifically for Citations used in this manner. I don't know what the terms are for it, but one presumes it has more generous hour limits on inspections so the plane down time in a high use environment is minimized.

There is no magical difference between a King Air 350 and a Citation V that makes one intrinsically more reliable than the other.

Mike C.

What is the concern with flying a Citation 700 hours per year?

The Citation doesn't need 1000 hours to do the same job because it is faster, which is the whole point of business aviation.

Textron does offer a HUMP, a high utilization maintenance program, specifically for Citations used in this manner. I don't know what the terms are for it, but one presumes it has more generous hour limits on inspections so the plane down time in a high use environment is minimized.

There is no magical difference between a King Air 350 and a Citation V that makes one intrinsically more reliable than the other.

Mike C.

Mike,

What was your block speed for 2024?

I know you have the data - logged hours and actual distance between cities. Since we're talking about saving time, use pilot hours and not airframe hours.

I'll bet the 700/1000 hr ratio doesn't hold in the real world.

I left FTW this morning behind a King Air climbing to 20,000. Everyone over FL220 had a delay, everyone under FL 220 was being released at will. I was chatting with a jet crew that was waiting to leave because they wouldn't have enough fuel to go nonstop if they left at 20k.

I don't because it is distorted by training and maintenance flights which yield zero effective miles.

I'd estimate it is around 350-360 knots. I average around 1.3 hours per leg, which is reasonably high.


I flew a 300 knot turboprop. I know how arduous it was on the high headwinds days. It culd take all day to get from here to Seattle in winter, say. The extra speed of the Citation makes a huge difference on those days and you spend more time in a headwind than tailwind.

I also hardly ever divert for weather in cruise with the jet. In the turboprop, you do that more often, adding miles to the trip.


While rare, there can be issues like this since jets are the more popular choice and ATC is constrained right now.

I've also seen turboprops held down low earlier than jets on arrivals, so there's pros and cons with ATC.

A King Air 350 would prefer to fly high than FL220 as well. Its fuel usage and speed will be impacted, too.

Mike C.

Why are they buying 2000 nm range 300 knot King Air 350s for that? What a waste.

Mike C.

I don't because it is distorted by training and maintenance flights which yield zero effective miles.