banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 03:27 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 181 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2021, 11:00 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/18/12
Posts: 784
Post Likes: +397
Location: Europe
Aircraft: Aerostar 600A
Username Protected wrote:
t I’d rather face an engine out in the Pilatus unless I’m guaranteed it will occur after takeoff.


WoW , that has got to be the most mis-guided quote I've read on BeechTalk in a loooong time !

What is the thinking behind THAT ?

_________________
A&P/IA
P35
Aerostar 600A


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2021, 13:02 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 14129
Post Likes: +9075
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
The PC12 turns into a glider with no power. It's an incredible 16:1 glide ratio. If you lose the engine you bug best glide, scroll through nearest list and glide most anywhere... assuming you've got altitude. stick shaker will ensure you don't stall/spin which saved that Boutique crash which couldn't have been botched much worse but no one died.

_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2021, 13:12 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/14/13
Posts: 6058
Post Likes: +4636
Username Protected wrote:
The PC12 turns into a glider with no power. It's an incredible 16:1 glide ratio. If you lose the engine you bug best glide, scroll through nearest list and glide most anywhere... assuming you've got altitude. stick shaker will ensure you don't stall/spin which saved that Boutique crash which couldn't have been botched much worse but no one died.


And you don a mask and deal with a panicked cabin of passengers who may or may not be passing out or dealing with their own helmet fire getting their masks on, you go down through an ice layer at night with boots that can’t cycle and you try to shoot an approach to minimums around terrain to an unfamiliar airport at night- with no power!

These are all potential factors and risks, that none of you are considering with such an obtuse statement

Or you watch an engine feather itself, some rudder boost kick in and you pull the condition lever to shut off, cross feed on, roll two clicks of rudder trim and start finding out where you want to spend the night and contemplate the current price of blackhawks on the way in


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2021, 13:44 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11105
Post Likes: +7090
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Username Protected wrote:
The PC12 turns into a glider with no power. It's an incredible 16:1 glide ratio. If you lose the engine you bug best glide, scroll through nearest list and glide most anywhere... assuming you've got altitude. stick shaker will ensure you don't stall/spin which saved that Boutique crash which couldn't have been botched much worse but no one died.

Or you watch an engine feather itself, some rudder boost kick in and you pull the condition lever to shut off, cross feed on


If they work. Two engines, twice as many not to work.
Gliding sans power in a pc12 with synthetic vision is truly easy. Gives you terrain avoidance too.

I think that the single engine horse has been b beat to death and it still wins.
Given less than stellar maintenance and you have even more things to go wrong in the twin.

Safety aspect of the king air vs pc12 is a moot point. Pc12 wins.

If it’s just one or two docs per trip, that is meridian world.
_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2021, 13:51 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/19/09
Posts: 330
Post Likes: +269
Company: Premier Bone and Joint
Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
I think it’s quite possible some of the docs would end up being OK with a SETP, but it would not be the first plane out of the hangar on a bad winter day. When I lost my engine in the Aerostar on one of these business trips, it happened right after leaving my home field which was at 1/4mi visibility in a snowstorm (below minimums). I was at about 3000AGL and the nearest airport that was not below minimums was 100 miles away. That would not have been a good day for me to glide to a forced landing (but I’ll agree that it would most likely have been survivable because I hadn’t gotten over the mountains yet…unless I froze to death after landing as it was about -25 on the ground that day). I shot the ILS on one engine (also in a snowstorm with just light ice that the boots shed well as it was very cold). I don’t dispute the safety record of the SETP aircraft. But I maintain that not every flying environment is the same, and ours is a bit unusual. For the same reason that you probably won’t find a lot of oil rig workers happy about riding out to their off-shore rig in a single engine turbine helicopter, some of our docs just feel better about a second engine. If you manage the near-ground engine out well, it’s clearly better to have a second engine. If you don’t, you contribute to the fatal accident rate that is very real. If you loose it in cruise, no question its better to be in the twin.

_________________
Thomas


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2021, 13:55 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/13/09
Posts: 5043
Post Likes: +6500
Location: Nirvana
Aircraft: OPAs
Username Protected wrote:
If you manage the near-ground engine out well, it’s clearly better to have a second engine. If you don’t, you contribute to the fatal accident rate that is very real. If you loose it in cruise, no question its better to be in the twin.





Reading about your experience it:
-convinces me the Aerostar has some good qualities
-convinces me that *I* like twins better than singles
-makes my blood run as cold as the ground that day.


Good job, sir

_________________
"Most of my money I spent on airplanes. The rest I just wasted....."
---the EFI, POF-----


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2021, 15:17 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/14/13
Posts: 6058
Post Likes: +4636
Username Protected wrote:

If they work. Two engines, twice as many not to work.
Gliding sans power in a pc12 with synthetic vision is truly easy. Gives you terrain avoidance too.


The odds of both quitting are greater than the odds of one quitting? Is that your argument?

Your synth vision is dead because along with your failed engine you have smoke in the cockpit and you’re in standby instruments running on their own battery power

My scenario is much more likely than your dual PT6 failure fantasies, as the data will show

It’s not a single vs twin argument, that’s a larger debate about the economics and practicality of which to operate


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2021, 15:29 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/11/11
Posts: 1094
Post Likes: +557
Company: FUSION
Aircraft: B300ER B200 C90 DHC6
Username Protected wrote:
t I’d rather face an engine out in the Pilatus unless I’m guaranteed it will occur after takeoff.

WoW , that has got to be the most mis-guided quote I've read on BeechTalk in a loooong time !

What is the thinking behind THAT ?
I am with Chip!
Think of all the fatal King Air crashes that happened during, or immediately after, takeoff in recent years.
Into FSI building at Wichita, Addison, etc. etc.

Last edited on 20 Aug 2021, 16:09, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2021, 15:40 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 14129
Post Likes: +9075
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
Username Protected wrote:
The odds of both quitting are greater than the odds of one quitting? Is that your argument?

Your synth vision is dead because along with your failed engine you have smoke in the cockpit and you’re in standby instruments running on their own battery power

My scenario is much more likely than your dual PT6 failure fantasies, as the data will show

It’s not a single vs twin argument, that’s a larger debate about the economics and practicality of which to operate


I'm a fan of twins, I like two spinny things... ya but however, anyone can invent scenarios to try to make their argument but if you honestly look at overall safety, the Pilatus is way way up there if not ahead of the KA. Both are very safe planes, and I agree that the KA is probably a better choice here. One could argue all day long for or against, primary knock on the pc12 being Capex, not safety.

I will just add the one time I had smoke in the cockpit was when the blower motor disintegrated on a C90A at 25000 ft filling the cabin with black smoke and resulting in o2 masks and a cabin dump and unscheduled landing. Ironically I'm sitting at Mather right now waiting for them to replace the AC motor on the PC12, but it's failure didn't fill the cabin with smoke. You gotta give props to the Swiss for their superior engineering, but they did have the advantage of computers when it was designed. KA is quite remarkable considering it was designed 50 years ago in the slide rule era.

_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2021, 15:52 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/14/13
Posts: 6058
Post Likes: +4636
Username Protected wrote:

I'm a fan of twins, I like two spinny things... ya but however, anyone can invent scenarios to try to make their argument but if you honestly look at overall safety, the Pilatus is way way up there if not ahead of the KA. Both are very safe planes, and I agree that the KA is probably a better choice here. One could argue all day long for or against, primary knock on the pc12 being Capex, not safety.


Adam, I agree completely, and I wasn't trying to exaggerate the scenario to prove any sort of point- I was actually using examples I've seen in NTSB reports that steered me away from the TBM/PC12 world

All of the advocates for the SETP will say the engine is bullet proof and PT6 millions of hours in fleet, etc, but then they'll tell you that having two means you're twice as likely to have a failure- that logic is valid, but now we're saying BOTH are going to fail so you'd rather just have one? I'm lost with Penman's comments there

Much like the constant point of the KA losing an engine on takeoff, I think this is a terrible scenario in both SETP and a KA, and statistically, is the most likely of the two (one engine failing in takeoff is more likely than TWO engines failing at any phase of flight), but both have dramatic drawbacks for both pilots

The earlier comments in this thread have said the PC12 is no big deal in icing, mountains, night IMC, etc- but then when the engine is quitting, it's synth vis and VFR conditions and a mile long runway available and ready- you can't ignore that those same conditions present a considerable challenge when the engine quits turning and the pressure blows

The doctors in the back of these airplanes want to have the most ammo in their gun when the fight is on


Last edited on 20 Aug 2021, 15:53, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2021, 15:52 
Offline



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 6718
Post Likes: +7257
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Username Protected wrote:
WoW , that has got to be the most mis-guided quote I've read on BeechTalk in a loooong time !

What is the thinking behind THAT ?
I am with Chip!
Think of all the fatal King Air crashes that happened during, or immediately, after takeoff in recent years.
Into FSI building at Wichita, Addison, etc. etc.


I don't think you will find two bigger King Air fans than me and Carlo!

And, I am not in anyway implying that a King Air is an unsafe airplane. But, Penman is correct, the fear of losing an engine in a Pilatus just isn't prone to become a reality. There is the "what if scenario" and there is passenger confidence (which matters) however we have simply seen too many takeoff loss of power issues in King Airs, issues by the way that have resulted in catastrophic crashes. We can't continue to claim that it's better to lose an engine, on takeoff, in a twin turboprop rather than a single.

I've beat the twin engine drum for 25 years, but the reality is the PC-12 has a pretty stellar safety record and engine losses are very, very rare. I can only think of one recent, that was the Boutique Air Pilatus that crashed short of the runway, the pilot limped away.

I'm still a King Air guy, I bleed Beechcraft Blue... but I have to concede that Pilatus has convinced me that one turbine engine is just fine.

Plus, it won't be long that we'll be talking about the Beechcraft Denali! Anyone want to bet a shiny new gold coin that it flies in 2021?
_________________
It’s a brave new world, one where most have forgotten the old ways.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2021, 16:06 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 14129
Post Likes: +9075
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
Username Protected wrote:
All of the advocates for the SETP will say the engine is bullet proof and PT6 millions of hours in fleet, etc, but then they'll tell you that having two means you're twice as likely to have a failure- that logic is valid, but now we're saying BOTH are going to fail so you'd rather just have one? I'm lost with Penman's comments there


Not to speak for Penman but the argument there is not that you'll lose both engines... the argument that is when you lose one bad things can happen in both airplanes. A VMC roll is gonna be a fatal maneuver... the safer airplane is debatable and depends largely on the pilot's skills. In the Boutique PC12 engine out crash, that kid did everything possible to screw that up, and in the end the stick pusher and airframe crash worthiness saved them. If he mishandled basic single engine out that every private pilot trains for, what are his chances in a KA. Same pilot in the KA likely would have killed all on board.

Add to that, many KA failures were a result of fuel controller failure, which is not an issue on the pc12. There is also the throttle rollback issue, which also isn't an issue on the pc12, and of course the fact that you have 2 engines means you're twice as likely to have one of them fail... But people get too myopic about turbine engine reliability, so many other things will kill you first starting with the person in the left seat.

_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii


Last edited on 20 Aug 2021, 16:18, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 20 Aug 2021, 16:15 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/13/09
Posts: 5043
Post Likes: +6500
Location: Nirvana
Aircraft: OPAs
Well, anyone that wants me to take one of those nasty single-engine TP PC-12s off their hands, cheap....I can arrange to do that.


(I fly behind a PT-6-67 all day, many days, down low over unhospitable terrain. I'd *love* to have one to fly X-C with...but the pocketbook prohibits that).


OTOH, while wishing....I just wish for a King Air 300....

_________________
"Most of my money I spent on airplanes. The rest I just wasted....."
---the EFI, POF-----


Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 21 Aug 2021, 13:36 
Offline

 Profile




Joined: 01/18/21
Posts: 1
Post Likes: +1
Aircraft: King Air C90A
Username Protected wrote:
The University of Wyoming is on the same home field…they have an atmospheric research KA200 (highly modified/experimental to fly into thunderstorms) and another transport KA200…


They also have a 2013 350i based there, they bought it from one of our clients.


The 350 for UW is a replacement for the research 200. It is currently out being outfitted with all its ports and holes for the research equipment. The 200 will be parted out and scrapped sounds like.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Looking for replacement for C90A King Airs
PostPosted: 08 Oct 2021, 13:00 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/19/09
Posts: 330
Post Likes: +269
Company: Premier Bone and Joint
Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
We are still working through things with the local airport as it is under new management and making lots of changes. Regarding the suggestion that a few of you have made on this thread with respect to purchasing a JetA truck and self-fueling, we have been told by the airport that we would have to pay a "flowage fee" if we elected to buy wholesale jet fuel and fuel our own turboprops. I have spoken with some others who suggest that such fees are only applicable if the airport charges a flowage fee to other businesses providing fuel to the public at the airport.

This from the FAA's website: The sponsor (the airport authority) may ask individuals and companies fueling their own planes to "d. Pay the same fuel flowage fees that the sponsor charges providers selling fuel to the public.
This practice alleviates the potential for claims of unjust discrimination."

At our small, non-towered field, the city owns the airport and the only FBO. They are the single source for all fuel sold at the field and no self-service pump is provided. So technically, there is no flowage fee charged to any business selling fuel at the airport as the owner, operator, and FBO are all one entity. Has anyone else encountered this situation with a small airport and an attempt to fuel your own planes? I was wondering how things got resolved in those situations. Thanks.

_________________
Thomas


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 181 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  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

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