banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 14:06 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 21:03 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/31/10
Posts: 13101
Post Likes: +6969
Username Protected wrote:
so what's the consensus on the upgrade path, beyond something like a TBM?

ie., if my mission is 7 people, 800nm, where should I be looking?

not really in love with jets, for many reasons, not the least of which is the initial training, and runway limitations (I love being able to get in and out of <4000').


Our Ultra loves short fields. Sub 4,000’ not an issue. Give me a mission and I’ll run numbers for you...


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 21:18 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 6230
Post Likes: +3730
Location: San Carlos, CA - KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
Username Protected wrote:
Our Ultra loves short fields. Sub 4,000’ not an issue. Give me a mission and I’ll run numbers for you...

How about 2600’ sea level, say 25 deg C departure? 800 lbs payload (includes pilot). How much fuel/range could be carried?

_________________
-Jon C.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 21:27 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/03/11
Posts: 1845
Post Likes: +1819
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
P180 will do that and go full fuel assuming you are ok ignoring balance field length. I don’t think you have that in mu2 either in those conditions unless you are really light, right?


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 23:18 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/23/10
Posts: 843
Post Likes: +660
Username Protected wrote:
so what's the consensus on the upgrade path, beyond something like a TBM?

ie., if my mission is 7 people, 800nm, where should I be looking?

not really in love with jets, for many reasons, not the least of which is the initial training, and runway limitations (I love being able to get in and out of <4000').


Our Ultra loves short fields. Sub 4,000’ not an issue. Give me a mission and I’ll run numbers for you...


If you’re offering, I’d like to know 2nd segment cling gradient and max range for 800#s payload on a 4,600’rwy at 6,000’msl on a 27* (ISA +25*) day.

Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2019, 03:12 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/31/10
Posts: 13101
Post Likes: +6969
Username Protected wrote:

If you’re offering, I’d like to know 2nd segment cling gradient and max range for 800#s payload on a 4,600’rwy at 6,000’msl on a 27* (ISA +25*) day.


Give me a field. Assuming Jon is referencing SQL. I’ll run that first.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2019, 03:51 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/31/10
Posts: 13101
Post Likes: +6969
SQL is no go IMC due to obstacle. I used SBA for numbers.

For 2600’ with 5kts you can go out at 14500 and come back at 14200. Book empty is 9395. First hour is 1800 lbs second is 1200 ish in high 30s to low 40s. Burn at FL450 is 1000lbs. Cruise is 430ktas at FL390 down to 410 at FL450 (Heavy).

Second pick shows no wind GW departure and max landing weight distances as 3354/2891. It holds 5800lbs of fuel.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2019, 04:34 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/23/10
Posts: 843
Post Likes: +660
Username Protected wrote:

If you’re offering, I’d like to know 2nd segment cling gradient and max range for 800#s payload on a 4,600’rwy at 6,000’msl on a 27* (ISA +25*) day.


Give me a field. Assuming Jon is referencing SQL. I’ll run that first.


KTRK

Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2019, 11:06 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/08/11
Posts: 924
Post Likes: +1277
Location: California
Aircraft: C182 B350
Quote:
Ultra that was nearly totaled when the pilot did not connect


Exactly!

_________________
NOT FOR NAVIGATIONAL USE


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2019, 12:23 
Online



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6715
Post Likes: +7252
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
I’ll just add that while I agree Beech hasn’t been very innovative with the King Air 350... the same is true for Pilatus... and all other manufacturers. The new King Air has the most innovative avionics of any turboprop. I actually like the Honeywell panel, but it is definitely long in the tooth. If you’re talking an older King Air you can do G1000NXi.

This seems to be one of the main reasons people choose the 350 over the PC-12, flexibility. Don’t have the budget for a 350i with touch screen panel, buy an older one and do G1000... 300kts not fast enough? Do Blackhawks and make it 335kts.

We go through this Pilatus PC-12 vs King Air 350 excercize quite often, and remember I’m not biased, I only care that our clients get the right airplane for them, and next year might be the opposite, but in the last few months we’ve had three clients go through this and all three chose the 350/350i.

For reference they are a 2001 350 with G1000NXi and two 2013 350i’s with Proline 21

The 350i has separate cabin controls for each passenger, window shades are electronic, the entire interior is updated and very different from the older King Airs.

The 350/350i is narrower than the Pilatus, but the seats move into the aisle and articulate. I’ve always found it to be as comfortable as any cabin without a flat floor.

I love the Pilatus, I’ll take it hands down over the B200... but the 350 is just way more airplane.

If anyone wants to buy a 350i, let me know... we are imersed in that market... if you want a PC-12, please... please call me... I’m bored to tears with all these King Airs. :D

_________________
It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2019, 14:09 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/31/10
Posts: 13101
Post Likes: +6969
Username Protected wrote:
Quote:
Ultra that was nearly totaled when the pilot did not connect


Exactly!


I’ll admit, I have a hard turn changing gears from the owner mindset.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2019, 15:03 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/08/11
Posts: 924
Post Likes: +1277
Location: California
Aircraft: C182 B350
Quote:

I’ll admit, I have a hard turn changing gears from the owner mindset.


Just messin' with ya. :peace:

I recognize and admire your intent. I personally know of a couple (mid-large cabin) aircraft that were practically destroyed by blue juice. It's hard to believe the stuff is even allowed within 100 yards of aircraft.

My (non) point is that our aircraft are at risk from a thousand points by a thousand people. So, I just happen to choose this particular task as delegable. Also, at least in my world, the dumbass-to-genius ratio among line guys seems roughly the same as pilots.

I work around amazing, eager and intelligent young people on the line, (I've had the privilege of mentoring many of them into the right seat) and they are no more likely to screw it up than I am. There are exceptions, of course.

Also, I tend to be a prima donna. :D

_________________
NOT FOR NAVIGATIONAL USE


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2019, 15:39 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/18/10
Posts: 458
Post Likes: +114
Location: Chicago
Aircraft: C441, C310N
Username Protected wrote:
Thanks for the pirep. I can’t believe the lav in the 350 is so complex. The lav in the Pilatus is stupid simple. I didn’t know a lav could be complex.

As I’ve stated many times, I wish Textron would rebuild the 350 with a sleeker fuselage, cargo door, trailing link gear, faster, etc. instead of doing the Denali.


Simply bring back the 441. It's all those things except the cargo door. I was doing 319KTAS at 280 burning 82gph this week. The nose is ugly but it'll hold as much baggage as the bed of my truck.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2019, 17:56 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/31/10
Posts: 13101
Post Likes: +6969
Username Protected wrote:
Quote:

I’ll admit, I have a hard turn changing gears from the owner mindset.


Just messin' with ya. :peace:

I recognize and admire your intent. I personally know of a couple (mid-large cabin) aircraft that were practically destroyed by blue juice. It's hard to believe the stuff is even allowed within 100 yards of aircraft.

My (non) point is that our aircraft are at risk from a thousand points by a thousand people. So, I just happen to choose this particular task as delegable. Also, at least in my world, the dumbass-to-genius ratio among line guys seems roughly the same as pilots.

I work around amazing, eager and intelligent young people on the line, (I've had the privilege of mentoring many of them into the right seat) and they are no more likely to screw it up than I am. There are exceptions, of course.

Also, I tend to be a prima donna. :D


We should meet... totally agree on the above.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 30 Nov 2019, 18:38 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/31/10
Posts: 13101
Post Likes: +6969
Username Protected wrote:

KTRK


Best special ODP off TRK is RWY29. Max weight is 14,157. With 800lb Payload, and 1 hr reserve, you can go 800-ish NM (no wind) in a couple hours....ballpark.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 09 Sep 2022, 22:31 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/16/12
Posts: 77
Post Likes: +65
Location: KHEF & KCPS
Aircraft: C501SP
Bringing this thread back from the dead for another similar PIREP. Flew a 2020 Kingair 350C with proline fusion for about a year. Equipped with cargo door, high density seating, HFG, higher power engines. And I recently started flying a 2021 PC-12NGX.

Bottom line, there isn't any comparison. The Honeywell system is way more intuitive than the Proline Fusion. The latter seems suited for crew operations, not single pilot ops. The FADEC and auto throttle work beautifully and make flying and starts a breeze. You can actually cool the plane down with a GPU. Load up the plane with pax, start the motor and you're off. The doors are easy to open and close, and best of all the pax don't get a face full of ass on the way to the cockpit. I've read some people say that the 350 looks like a real plane, but the entryway negates that advantage IMO. The landings are almost disconcertingly smooth and the plane slows down without brakes or reverse.

The Kingair 350 is an impressive turboprop, no doubt. But to climb into a nearly 10 million dollar plane and see analog fuel gauges is infuriating. Two engines is just about the only reason I could see to buy the 350 over a PC-12NG.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.