16 Apr 2024, 08:05 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12  Posted: 10 Sep 2022, 01:06 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 10/04/19
Posts: 653
Post Likes: +400
Company: Capella Partners
Location: Alpine Airpark, 46U
Aircraft: P35, TW Pacer
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 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. Two engines and ... 50 KTAS? -J
_________________
PPL AMEL
@jacksonholepilot on instagram
firstlast@gmail.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12 Posted: 10 Sep 2022, 08:51 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 07/16/12
Posts: 77
Post Likes: +65
Location: KHEF & KCPS
Aircraft: C501SP
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Two engines and ... 50 KTAS?
-J
350 advertises 312ktas and the PC-12NGX advertises 290ktas max speed. Time difference is made up for in pax comfort and utility. Comparing a 1995 /45 to a Blackhawk mod 350 is a different proposition (although even then the utility of the PC-12 is hard to beat).. I’m talking about fresh of the factory line.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12 Posted: 10 Sep 2022, 21:18 |
|
|
|
|
 |
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:
Two engines and ... 50 KTAS?
-J
Nope, the NGX runs like 275-280, a factory 350 will be like 295-300… so 20 knots faster…
_________________
The sound of a second engine still running after the first engine fails is why I like having two.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12 Posted: 12 Sep 2022, 09:03 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/07/09
Posts: 45
Post Likes: +15
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Granted I learned to fly in 1969, but there is something to be said about steam gauges. If one goes out, you have the rest. I’ve had G1000 aircraft as well and if a screen goes black you’re looking across the cockpit. So I don’t mind the analog fuel gauges people are complaining about. To each his own. Long live the King Air, newer isn’t always better. I’ve had more old gauges get stuck then screens go out in my life. But I’ve had screens go out. Maybe the key is not to have massive screens that are like eye candy in sales adds and have back up ones. But you started in the 60s and like analog, I started in the early 90s when multi screens was the most advanced thing. I’m sure those who started in G1000s see it different, but that’s okay, they’re spoiled and wrong  
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12 Posted: 24 Sep 2022, 13:47 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/31/11
Posts: 990
Post Likes: +638
Company: B777, 767, 757, 727, MD11, S80
Location: Colorado Springs
Aircraft: Thrush S2R, AC500B,
|
|
Username Protected wrote: 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. You mean same conCraption?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12 Posted: 24 Sep 2022, 13:51 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/31/11
Posts: 990
Post Likes: +638
Company: B777, 767, 757, 727, MD11, S80
Location: Colorado Springs
Aircraft: Thrush S2R, AC500B,
|
|
|
[quote="Anthony Pigliacampo"]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?[/quot
Will it do that off dirt field?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12 Posted: 25 Sep 2022, 18:55 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/15/21
Posts: 74
Post Likes: +3
Aircraft: 33b
|
|
|
How about the Cheyane 400? Looks amazing on paper. Not the same load hauler as a 350 though
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12 Posted: 25 Sep 2022, 21:12 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6351
Post Likes: +5538
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: How about the Cheyane 400? Looks amazing on paper. Not the same load hauler as a 350 though It's a beast. But not many were made and I think you need to be an involved downer to own one. But the performance is spectacular.
_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12 Posted: 27 Sep 2022, 16:12 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6776
Post Likes: +7322
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote: How about the Cheyane 400? Looks amazing on paper. Not the same load hauler as a 350 though The 400LS is a lot like a Lamborghini Countach... looks cool as hell! But, old and hard to maintain. They built 43 and 37 are still in operation.
_________________
It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12 Posted: 27 Sep 2022, 16:23 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/28/21
Posts: 99
Post Likes: +62
Company: Charwood Partners
|
|
Username Protected wrote: How about the Cheyane 400? Looks amazing on paper. Not the same load hauler as a 350 though The 400LS is a lot like a Lamborghini Countach... looks cool as hell! But, old and hard to maintain. They built 43 and 37 are still in operation.
I don't know about you, Chip, but I'd be willing to bet that 85% of King Airs built are not presently operating...
Also, of all the "modern" era Lamborghini's, the Countach is pretty easy to maintain. Parts are available, albeit expensive, just like the 400LS.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12 Posted: 27 Sep 2022, 16:30 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/28/21
Posts: 99
Post Likes: +62
Company: Charwood Partners
|
|
Username Protected wrote: How about the Cheyane 400? Looks amazing on paper. Not the same load hauler as a 350 though The 400LS is a lot like a Lamborghini Countach... looks cool as hell! But, old and hard to maintain. They built 43 and 37 are still in operation.
I don't know about you, Chip, but I'd be willing to bet that 85% of King Airs built are not presently operating...
Also, of all the "modern" era Lamborghini's, the Countach is pretty easy to maintain (unlike, say a Murcielago or Diablo). Parts are available, albeit expensive, just like the 400LS.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12 Posted: 27 Sep 2022, 16:56 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 4006
Post Likes: +4411
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
|
|
Username Protected wrote: How about the Cheyane 400? Looks amazing on paper. Not the same load hauler as a 350 though Buy two so you always have one ready to go.
_________________
Be Nice
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: 100 hours in the King Air 350 vs. 8 years in PC12 Posted: 27 Sep 2022, 16:59 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6776
Post Likes: +7322
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
I don't know about you, Chip, but I'd be willing to bet that 85% of King Airs built are not presently operating...
Also, of all the "modern" era Lamborghini's, the Countach is pretty easy to maintain (unlike, say a Murcielago or Diablo). Parts are available, albeit expensive, just like the 400LS.
Did you mean only 85% of King Airs built are still operating? 
_________________
It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
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
|
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
|
|
|
|
