BeechTalk - BT - 3 bladed -10 Conquest II

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 May 2022, 13:24

Username Protected wrote:

They are substantially worse according to the flightsafety docs describing the differences between the 3 and 4, I’ll see if I can dig that up. RVSM is a huge difference with -10 engines, I would send this to west star and have them do RVSM and props and the Phase. It will be expensive but then you’re done. They know how to get parts and they have many in stock, and they know how to troubleshoot the computers (one if only 3 places in the country to my knowledge). NDT found a crack in a flap and they had two extra flaps on the shelf! One thing they are not is cheap.

Straightflight in Denver can fix the camera holes, that is their primary business (sheet metal et al).

Incidentally I have a complete meggitt system with EIS if you need it.

John

I would be curious to see what the FlightSafety specs for the -10 3 bladed 441 looks like if you have the time. I also wonder if that would be for -8 or -10 engines.

According the the AFM supplement in the scanned logs the performance looks good to me. (See attached)

I sent you a pm re the Meggitt

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 May 2022, 13:59

Username Protected wrote:

Sorry Hilgard I didn't mean to be a party pooper. If the plane has been maintained by WS maybe it will fare fine during the pre buy. If you trust your shop and they have experience with the 441, especially some of the heavy maintenance then you should be fine.

The shop that he mentioned is one that I worked with the owner and most of the management over the last 30 years. They maintain 3-4 441's right now, several are on their 135 certificate. They did the prebuy on my customers airplane and found WestStar's error before the airplane ever got to their shop based on the information I sent them. They also maintain one or two of Hangen's airplanes and I'm sure he can give you a positive recommendation. There is an incredible amount of experience in that shop.

Their website has a picture of my customers 441 on it from last year when they were doing the tail SID and major avionics upgrade. It's the one missing the tail on the bottom right picture. It's also the panel picture on the same site:

https://kubickaviation.com/cessna-441-c ... -services/

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 May 2022, 14:22

Username Protected wrote:

Hmmm..

4 blade props add about 200 fpm and 5 knots over 3 blades, as well as lowering noise levels. It's a more efficient blade. If the 3 blades were faster you wouldn't have 95% of the fleet converting to 4 blade.

That's not what I heard from Merlin operators who compared -10's with 3 and 4 bladed props and of course there is Mike C's voluminous writing about his MU2 experience that also states the 3 blade being faster in cruise.

I agree on the noise.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 May 2022, 14:34

Username Protected wrote:

They are substantially worse according to the flightsafety docs describing the differences between the 3 and 4, I’ll see if I can dig that up. RVSM is a huge difference with -10 engines, I would send this to west star and have them do RVSM and props and the Phase. It will be expensive but then you’re done. They know how to get parts and they have many in stock, and they know how to troubleshoot the computers (one if only 3 places in the country to my knowledge). NDT found a crack in a flap and they had two extra flaps on the shelf! One thing they are not is cheap.

Straightflight in Denver can fix the camera holes, that is their primary business (sheet metal et al).

Incidentally I have a complete meggitt system with EIS if you need it.

John

I would be curious to see what the FlightSafety specs for the -10 3 bladed 441 looks like if you have the time. I also wonder if that would be for -8 or -10 engines.

According the the AFM supplement in the scanned logs the performance looks good to me. (See attached)

I sent you a pm re the Meggitt

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 May 2022, 14:55

Username Protected wrote:

Sorry Hilgard I didn't mean to be a party pooper. If the plane has been maintained by WS maybe it will fare fine during the pre buy. If you trust your shop and they have experience with the 441, especially some of the heavy maintenance then you should be fine. The problem I see is that most owners think their planes are perfect and then they have a freak out when the pre buy uncovers lots of overdue inspections and airworthiness issues that cost $100k to resolve (not hard on a turbine). I would just be sure there's a clear understanding in writing about who is responsible for fixing airworthiness issues uncovered during the inspection. Also be clear in writing about exactly what inspection you'll do for a pre buy. In other words, "the pre buy inspection will consist of a phase x, y, and z per the C441 MX manual rev 15" or whatever. Anyway good luck, those are amazing airplanes.

Scott

No offense. That is sage advice for anyone looking at a TP. We just did a prebuy on a Merlin IIIA that we walked away from after finding about $200K in deferred maintenance. From the outside the plane looked pretty nice though...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 May 2022, 16:31

It's pretty darn shocking how quickly a bill can climb into the 6 figures with an older turboprop. I just spent about $120k on a HSI and a 2,3,D for my C425. There was nothing wrong with it when I dropped it off...

I knew I was in trouble when I saw the first bill from my MX provider 6 years ago and it had wire instructions at the bottom.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 May 2022, 16:40

Username Protected wrote:

It's pretty darn shocking how quickly a bill can climb into the 6 figures with an older turboprop. I just spent about $120k on a HSI and a 2,3,D for my C425. There was nothing wrong with it when I dropped it off...

I knew I was in trouble when I saw the first bill from my MX provider 6 years ago and it had wire instructions at the bottom.

One HSI or two?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 May 2022, 16:57

both engines, new blades

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 May 2022, 18:10

Username Protected wrote:

I knew I was in trouble when I saw the first bill from my MX provider 6 years ago and it had wire instructions at the bottom.

That is hilarious!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 May 2022, 19:56

Username Protected wrote:

Advertised useful load seems high. Did the -10 STC come with a gross weight increase that I am not aware of?

I am not sure what the actual UL is on 441’s, this one was actually weighed recently so I would think it’s accurate.

Hilgard

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 May 2022, 20:24

Shouldn’t they calculate max useful load by using max ramp weight - empty weight?

I see W&B forms using either weight - max take-off or max ramp.

Let me know if I have it wrong.

Thanks, Z

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 May 2022, 20:27

Unless there's an STC I'm not familiar with, the MGW on a 441 is 9,850lbs, not 10,850lbs, so they've mistakenly given you an extra 1,000lbs of useful.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 May 2022, 20:34

We were the next plane on the assembly line, 0012.

Empty weight 6,292, useful load 4,048.

We have VGs, -10 engines, "winglets," and our UL is 10,340 lbs. From the factory it was 9,850.

I don't know of any mods to get over 10,340lbs. Strakes? Mistake?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 May 2022, 22:04

Username Protected wrote:

We were the next plane on the assembly line, 0012.

Empty weight 6,292, useful load 4,048.

We have VGs, -10 engines, "winglets," and our UL is 10,340 lbs. From the factory it was 9,850.

I don't know of any mods to get over 10,340lbs. Strakes? Mistake?

I see in the logs a STC for VG's (SA00487SE )that gives a max ramp weight of 10,415 lbs and max takeoff weight of 10,350lbs.

The plane also has strakes, but I do not clearly see on the STC (SA01935LA) that it increases UL, so the 10,850 figure might be a mistake.

However 4289 lbs is still a massive UL, that gives nearly 1100 lbs with full fuel. Impressive.

Hilgard

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 May 2022, 22:43

Username Protected wrote:

We were the next plane on the assembly line, 0012.

Empty weight 6,292, useful load 4,048.

We have VGs, -10 engines, "winglets," and our UL is 10,340 lbs. From the factory it was 9,850.

I don't know of any mods to get over 10,340lbs. Strakes? Mistake?

I see in the logs a STC for VG's (SA00487SE )that gives a max ramp weight of 10,415 lbs and max takeoff weight of 10,350lbs.

The plane also has strakes, but I do not clearly see on the STC (SA01935LA) that it increases UL, so the 10,850 figure might be a mistake.

However 4289 lbs is still a massive UL, that gives nearly 1100 lbs with full fuel. Impressive.

Hilgard