BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2015, 01:21

Username Protected wrote:

So, you are saying that a King Air at MTOW has to climb? Absolutely not true. On one engine of course.

Yes, it does.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2015, 01:22

Username Protected wrote:

The Merlin I flew did have balanced field data in the manual. Accelerate stop is rarely the limiting factor in a turboprop so if you have accelerate go performance you're probably balanced.

Do you know what accel/go looks like on a summer day out of Big Bear in any turboprop? There is no requirement that it climb at all. Some King Airs are off the chart North of 15k accel/go, don't need it, but yes they publish it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2015, 01:24

Jon, under what conditions are you saying this is true? Standard day, sea level?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2015, 01:27

You are not required to have climb performance on a FAR 23 Turboprop on takeoff to be legal. It is not guaranteed anywhere. You may be talking about at certification on a standard day, sea level, but that has nothing to do with daily operations around the country.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2015, 01:32

Username Protected wrote:

Jon, under what conditions are you saying this is true? Standard day, sea level?

If memory serves it's 5000msl and below/standard day.

Edit:

I looked it up and it is 5000msl but the KA-350 is commuter category which is different than the basic 6000# cutover (I had thought they were one and the same)

Since the KA-350 is over 12,500, but under 19,000 it must meet the commuter category climb requirements, which I assume are at least as stringent as the 6000# recip requirement.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2015, 01:52

Here is the part 23 commuter category requirements that I believe would apply to the KA-350. I can't tell if the 5000 msl altitude applies to this section.

(1) Takeoff; landing gear extended. The steady gradient of climb at the altitude of the takeoff surface must be measurably positive for two-engine airplanes, not less than 0.3 percent for three-engine airplanes, or 0.5 percent for four-engine airplanes with—

(i) The critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the position it rapidly and automatically assumes;

(ii) The remaining engine(s) at takeoff power;

(iii) The landing gear extended, and all landing gear doors open;

(iv) The wing flaps in the takeoff position(s);

(v) The wings level; and

(vi) A climb speed equal to V2.

(2) Takeoff; landing gear retracted. The steady gradient of climb at an altitude of 400 feet above the takeoff surface must be not less than 2.0 percent of two-engine airplanes, 2.3 percent for three-engine airplanes, and 2.6 percent for four-engine airplanes with—

(i) The critical engine inoperative and its propeller in the position it rapidly and automatically assumes;

(ii) The remaining engine(s) at takeoff power;

(iii) The landing gear retracted;

(iv) The wing flaps in the takeoff position(s);

(v) A climb speed equal to V2.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2015, 02:03

This is for certification of FAR 23 Commuter Category(you edited your post), which is different than all of the Normal Category King Airs (90,100, 200 series). The only ones you are talking about are the 300 and 350. What you are talking about is in regards to certification, not operational. It is perfectly legal for a King Air to takeoff and have no climb on one engine. It is not guaranteed anywhere other than certification on a standard day, which means nothing to me at Gillespie Field here in San Diego on a summer day when it's 100 degrees at Sea Level. Point being, you can derive climb gradients, but they aren't guaranteed on any given day.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2015, 02:09

Username Protected wrote:

This is for certification of FAR 23 Commuter Category(you edited your post), which is different than all of the Normal Category King Airs (90,100, 200 series). The only ones you are talking about are the 300 and 350. What you are talking about is in regards to certification, not operational. It is perfectly legal for a King Air to takeoff and have no climb on one engine. It is not guaranteed anywhere other than certification on a standard day, which means nothing to me at Gillespie Field here in San Diego on a summer day when it's 100 degrees at Sea Level. Point being, you can derive climb gradients, but they aren't guaranteed on any given day.

I don't disagree except to point out that the 90, 100 and 200 still had to meet the (6000# certification) requirement to climb on one engine, but yes you are correct about day to day operations.

I remember next to nothing about flying King Airs but all the garrett powered turboprops I flew had respectable single engine climb performance out of CRQ/SEE/MYF which is where I also flew.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2015, 03:44

Going through this same process. It boils down to two basic choices. Eagle 2 from Sierra Jet using the williams. Engines need to be on a program. 1.2m gets you. 380kts 1600 miles. You will burn 120-130/hr

The S/II gets you 1800 miles at up to 400kts buring 170-180hr and spend $600k

If ebitda is king for the management team get the williams. Minimal impact on ebitda. You want to limit you captial spend go with the S/II but realize it will be more expensive to operate and hence more negatively biased toward ebitda. But of course you can be so much more productive with a corp jet that the whole this washes out and its a big win

The end

I swear I am having this exact conversation with my Board this week. The good news is the need for an airplane is part of our culture. We use two now effectively. Lowering prices, jet fuel cost and availability and the fact that avg flights are 5 and 6 hours demands a different solutions The jet is 2x op cost of a piston cabin class twin but it is twice as fast or faster. So operationally it's a wash. What you can do with a jet is get key customers and partners to your Hq especially if it is located in the UP of michigan. Our inability to get these investors, suppliers and customers to meet with us on our turf hurts us. This solves that. Everyone will fly a 2 man crewed 400kt jet for a couple hours to see what we do and get a taste of our culture. Our biggest partner has come once in 6 yrs to visit cause it is a two day trip,for one meeting.

There is a rationale here boys. Go big or go home. I believe.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2015, 08:46

Username Protected wrote:

Going through this same process. It boils down to two basic choices. Eagle 2 from Sierra Jet using the williams. Engines need to be on a program. 1.2m gets you. 380kts 1600 miles. You will burn 120-130/hr

The S/II gets you 1800 miles at up to 400kts buring 170-180hr and spend $600k

If ebitda is king for the management team get the williams. Minimal impact on ebitda. You want to limit you captial spend go with the S/II but realize it will be more expensive to operate and hence more negatively biased toward ebitda. But of course you can be so much more productive with a corp jet that the whole this washes out and its a big win

The end

I swear I am having this exact conversation with my Board this week. The good news is the need for an airplane is part of our culture. We use two now effectively. Lowering prices, jet fuel cost and availability and the fact that avg flights are 5 and 6 hours demands a different solutions The airplane jet is 2x op cost of a piston cabin class twin but it is twice as fast or faster. So operationally it's a wash. What you can do with a jet is get key customers and partners to your Hq especially if it is located in the UP of michigan. Our inability to get these investors, suppliers and customers to meet with us on our turf hurts us. This solves that. Everyone will fly a 2 man crewed 400kt jet for a couple hours to see what we do and get a taste of our culture. Our biggest partner has come once in 6 yrs to visit cause it is a two day trip,for one meeting.

There is a rational here boys. Go big or go home. I believe.

Your point about the time savings Is very valid. But one thing I think you are over looking is the "ramp appeal" of a 700k jet. Most of these are crusty looking machines. (Except the Lears) :thumbup:

Even with newer paint and interior they just look very dated. And a jet of that cost and age will no doubt break down more. When you think about wooing potential investors I would be taking this into consideration. Interest is cheap. Spend 3+ and get something nice with a Hot wing. Boots are for turboprops. :cheers:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2015, 08:54

Username Protected wrote:

Going through this same process. It boils down to two basic choices. Eagle 2 from Sierra Jet using the williams. Engines need to be on a program. 1.2m gets you. 380kts 1600 miles. You will burn 120-130/hr

The S/II gets you 1800 miles at up to 400kts buring 170-180hr and spend $600k

If ebitda is king for the management team get the williams. Minimal impact on ebitda. You want to limit you captial spend go with the S/II but realize it will be more expensive to operate and hence more negatively biased toward ebitda. But of course you can be so much more productive with a corp jet that the whole this washes out and its a big win

The end

I swear I am having this exact conversation with my Board this week. The good news is the need for an airplane is part of our culture. We use two now effectively. Lowering prices, jet fuel cost and availability and the fact that avg flights are 5 and 6 hours demands a different solutions The airplane jet is 2x op cost of a piston cabin class twin but it is twice as fast or faster. So operationally it's a wash. What you can do with a jet is get key customers and partners to your Hq especially if it is located in the UP of michigan. Our inability to get these investors, suppliers and customers to meet with us on our turf hurts us. This solves that. Everyone will fly a 2 man crewed 400kt jet for a couple hours to see what we do and get a taste of our culture. Our biggest partner has come once in 6 yrs to visit cause it is a two day trip,for one meeting.

There is a rational here boys. Go big or go home. I believe.

Your point about the time savings Is very valid. But one thing I think you are over looking is the "ramp appeal" of a 700k jet. Most of these are crusty looking machines. (Except the Lears) :thumbup: Even with newer paint and interior they just look very dated. And a jet of that cost and age will no doubt break down more. When you think about wooing potential investors I would be taking this into consideration. Interest is cheap. Spend 3+ and get something nice with a Hot wing. Boots are for turboprops. :cheers:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2015, 09:17

Hmmmm. I should say that no jet probably is best for wooing investors. :lol:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2015, 09:28

Username Protected wrote:

Hmmmm. I should say that no jet probably is best for wooing investors. :lol:

Very true... Along with low executive comp packages ! Southwest Airlines here we come!

In all seriousness I've wittnessed several situations where guys regretted buying a "cheap" jet. AOG way too much and constant maintenance management.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2015, 09:29

Mark,

Let's assume you are choosing between Jet X and Jet Y and you will make the wrong choice. Which choice is easier to get out of? It's gonna be hard to know how you like the plane til you own it. Can you just pick the one easier to bail out of if you pick wrong?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 Jan 2015, 10:12

Username Protected wrote:

Mark,

Let's assume you are choosing between Jet X and Jet Y and you will make the wrong choice. Which choice is easier to get out of? It's gonna be hard to know how you like the plane til you own it. Can you just pick the one easier to bail out of if you pick wrong?

There you go again thinking like a pilot....what's my plan b if things don't turn out like I thought? Good on ya.

I think it is a matter of buying right to begin with. Buy right and your exit options are higher. I think it is a mistake to assume that you can buy right just cause you bought x number of piston / turbo props in the past. Jets are a whole different deal. Better records too. I think one should plan on working with an acquisition advisor and doing a phase V plus ($50k) prebuy.

Comparatively small investment (although high as a% of sales price) given the risks and need for "exit option value".

Am I thinking correctly?

Best jet to replace MU2