banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 17:20 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 01:29 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/13/11
Posts: 2763
Post Likes: +2183
Company: Aeronautical People Shuffler
Location: Picayune, MS (KHSA)
Aircraft: KA350/E55/DA-62
So I changed jobs a few months ago and now fly a King Air 350. I left a job flying a legacy PC12, PC12NG, Falcon 20, and a helicopter. It's nice to fly just one airplane now.

First and foremost, the only reason why King Air exists is for people who require (life insurance for CEO, or mission requirements) or simply want two engines. I'll admit. I like having two engines, but I have never felt uncomfortable operating a PC12.

I'll start with the positives.

It's faster but not by much. From what I've seen, 280-295 is the norm. Using the engine anti-ice reduces that by about 10-15 knots.

The climb is the most noticeable performance difference. That climb rate allows the upper 20s and in some instances low 30s to be usable. Those altitudes are not really usable in the PC12 mainly because the PC12 has a lower service ceiling and don't get RVSM.

The wing lockers are fantastic. I love them. It makes the overall baggage capacity better than the PC12.

The airplane holds more in general. Having a full 8 in the double club and the toilet makes it so 11 bodies can be on board and still have the full baggage compartment. The 350 has a bigger baggage compartment in the rear. I know a lot of PC12 operators take out the 8th seat by the door to use it for more baggage.

The auto feather system is pretty nice. As long as it works, it really makes an engine failure pretty simple.

For the negatives..

Holy crap this thing is cramped. Yes I said it holds more but that is derived from the length, not width. The PC12 is more comfortable in the front and the back. The crew seats in the King Air run right up against the wall. The PC12 has, id say 6 inches between, the seat edge and the wall. It's more cumbersome to get into the cockpit.

There are no sunshades on the passenger windows. A super nice feature with no electric AC. The fusion and later I believe will shut down with the polarized windows dark, but the Proline 21 shuts down clear.

I hate the door in the back. Yes, I understand that having a forward door in the King Air is impossible. Having to do this walk of shame through potentially 8 people in a cabin more cramped than the PC12 then they get to watch me do this stupid maneuver to get into the cockpit is less than desirable.

Potentially the biggest disappointment, many King Airs do not have electric AC. Remember that walk of shame? Now imagine its 100 degrees, the door is closed and I have to technically get both engines turning before I can turn on the engine-driven AC compressor.

The airplane is freaking antiquated. Even with big Garmin big screens you still have this 1960s switch system and round gauges like the fuel panel. The whole power console is in that same category.

The power levers suck and I think can be a potential safety hazard. If your friction locks are not properly locked the power levers, especially the left, will creep back fairly quickly. With the friction loose it takes only a couple of seconds to go from full power to far enough back to have the gear horn on. Even with the friction all the way loose, the PC12 PCL never moved. Why this hasn't been addressed is mind-boggling. It's been said that it could have been a factor in 350 accidents right after takeoff.

The airstair on the PC12 is much better. Not only is it way easier to close, but the PC12 also has an actual handrail. The rubber covered cables of the King Air are one of those, "why haven't you made this better in the last few decades" items.

The King Air doesn't have a flat floor, a spar runs across, not a huge deal put the PC12 does.

The toilet is an overcomplicated dumpster fire. Both the PC12 and the 350 are "poop in the box, empty the box" concepts but at least Pilatus makes the system as easy as it seems. In the PC12 open the toilet lid, screw lid on the box, unplug flush wire, take out the box. In the 350 you are essentially laying down on the entry door to look under the toilet because everything comes out from a small door in the front. You have to close this valve, unplug a quick disconnect tube that pumps blue juice that may or may not leak fluid. Then you move these tabs and the whole thing slides out. Sounds simple until you are putting it all back in and laying down on the floor trying to get this stupid thing to line up the tracks that are on the top. This means you have to hold the box like an inch off the bottom to put it on the tracks. Oh and once you get that back in, you then realize you need more toilet paper only to find out that the only way to change the paper is with the box out. Another one of those "why haven't you made this better in the last few decades"

I think the general fit and finish in the PC12 interior is much better.

Neither are bad airplanes but it's frustrating to see a company not try. It's like watching the Bonanza and the SR22. You see so much potential but they just don't want to take the time or money to make the product better.

_________________
The sound of a second engine still running after the first engine fails is why I like having two.


Last edited on 29 Nov 2019, 17:37, edited 2 times in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 08:21 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26431
Post Likes: +13064
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
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.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 09:50 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/05/11
Posts: 5303
Post Likes: +2423
Aircraft: BE-55
Sorta summed up my thoughts exactly just looking at it. Didn’t know about the lav. But just looking down the cabin I thought overgrown long spam can. With props. Anyway, how does one fill the inboard tanks? Looks like you needed to be in a crane.

_________________
“ Embrace the Suck”


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 13:04 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/08/11
Posts: 924
Post Likes: +1277
Location: California
Aircraft: C182 B350
Absolutely fantastic summation!

Notes:

    I like the second engine more than you do.

    I keep an envelope full of cash in the cockpit. This is why I have never touched the lav, personally.

    No joke, yoga will allow you to slip into any cockpit without effort.

    I get about 306KTAS at ISA+0

    Agree totally with your positive comments on PC-12


_________________
NOT FOR NAVIGATIONAL USE


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 15:22 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/23/10
Posts: 843
Post Likes: +660
Great PIREP.

I hadn't been in a King Air cockpit for about 2 decades prior to this year's NBAA. The KA350 on static display looked the exact same as 2 decades ago (and I'm sure 2 decades before that). I'm sorry, but it looks horrible in the cockpit with all the round dials and antiquated switching with a few glass panels tacked on. It is pathetic that Beech has put such little effort into upgrading/modernizing ALL of their product lines over the past 5 or more decades. Had they spent a little money and effort along the way they might not have gone broke. I own a couple orchards and it's the same thing, you can be penny wise and pound foolish and neglect your trees and get an ever declining crop until you finally bring the trees to a premature death, or you can maintain and nurture them each year and get a much longer useful life out of them. Total mismanagement in my opinion. Cessna is guilty of the same with their piston line. At least with the Citations they've made some modest improvements. Don't tell me it's due to FAA certification bureaucracy as other MFGs seem able to update their product line. Competition is good.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 15:40 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/05/16
Posts: 3097
Post Likes: +2222
Company: Tack Mobile
Location: KBJC
Aircraft: C441
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.


Isn't that basically what the Denali is? They even got rid of the vestigial engine.

I did initial training at RTC (in their 414) and spent some time in their King Air and briefly in the PC-12. The 414 was the most comfortable, PC-12 seemed odd with the huge glare sheild (maybe I didn't have the seat adjusted correctly) and the King Air was an outlier– way too narrow and felt like the 340. Reminded me when you go into an old house and the shower head comes out of the wall about eye level.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 17:50 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/13/11
Posts: 2763
Post Likes: +2183
Company: Aeronautical People Shuffler
Location: Picayune, MS (KHSA)
Aircraft: KA350/E55/DA-62
Username Protected wrote:
Sorta summed up my thoughts exactly just looking at it. Didn’t know about the lav. But just looking down the cabin I thought overgrown long spam can. With props. Anyway, how does one fill the inboard tanks? Looks like you needed to be in a crane.



They just crawl on the wing, lay on it, or some can stretch off of a ladder, surprisingly I haven't heard of a lot of boots getting torn up doing this. There is no graceful way to fill it. The outboards hold 2500lbs and the inboards bring it to 3600. With 2500 onboard that's over 3 hours in the air. I only get fuel in the inboards if I need it or I'm tankering for high fuel prices.

_________________
The sound of a second engine still running after the first engine fails is why I like having two.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 17:58 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/13/11
Posts: 2763
Post Likes: +2183
Company: Aeronautical People Shuffler
Location: Picayune, MS (KHSA)
Aircraft: KA350/E55/DA-62
A couple more things I've thought about.

The King Air has fire bottles which are nice. It's another contortion act to check the site gauges in the wheel wells but they do have them.

Higher VNE. VNE is 262 on the 350, 240 on the PC12. Descents over 1500fpm can make you have to pull back the PC12.

I think the chart function on the Pro-Line 21 is easier to use than the NG charts. I am a huge APEX fan, once you play with it, you begin to love it but the charts are just quicker to use on the 21.

I do like the 1500RPM props. I understand Pilatus came out with this function, (see Beechcraft, this what listening to your customers looks like). It is quieter and allows you to use them to help you slow down like other constant-speed prop airplanes.

_________________
The sound of a second engine still running after the first engine fails is why I like having two.


Top

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


 Profile




Joined: 01/31/10
Posts: 13101
Post Likes: +6969
Regarding the lav - the legacy Cessna jets (and twins) have the same contraption.

Unlike Bill, I don’t let the line guys touch it. There was an Ultra that was nearly totaled when the pilot did not connect the flush line properly and blue juice corroded the airframe.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 18:38 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/05/09
Posts: 4082
Post Likes: +2731
Location: Small Town, NC
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').

_________________
"Find worthy causes in your life."


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 18:42 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/06/10
Posts: 1434
Post Likes: +706
Location: KMBO Brandon, MS
Never flew a PC12 but, my choice for comfort and ease of flying of those that you have mentioned would be the Falcon 20, hands down. Good luck on the new job.

MM


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 20:13 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/18/11
Posts: 2203
Post Likes: +1926
Location: (West of) St Louis, MO KFYG
Aircraft: PA28 180C
Can we assume the KA doesn't have a PTT in the toilet? :scratch:


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 20:26 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26431
Post Likes: +13064
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
Username Protected wrote:
Can we assume the KA doesn't have a PTT in the toilet? :scratch:

I have a guy that will wire it up for you


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 20:38 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 6230
Post Likes: +3733
Location: San Carlos, CA - KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
Username Protected wrote:
... beyond something like a TBM?...
not really in love with jets...
(I love being able to get in and out of <4000').

Yes, it’s tough getting all of these boxes ticked. It leads to high end turboprops.

_________________
-Jon C.


Top

 Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12
PostPosted: 29 Nov 2019, 20:47 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5520
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
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').


P180, of course! ;)

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 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

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