BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2023, 21:34

Username Protected wrote:

If I have to downgrade from the Citation, the 441 would be my first choice.

Mike C.

I don't understand this. I have run -10 441, -42 200 and -61 B200. Would much, much rather have -61 B200. Bigger cabin, more comfort same speed.

Yes, fuel burn is much more with B200 and one can argue various nits on the engines both way.

My $0.02 is you can only submit based on experience. I have 441 and 200/B200 experience. I don't have Twin Commander or Citation experience, so I remain mute on those.

The market seems to have spoke loudly over the years with the 200/B200/B250/B260/300. The B300 is a different animal.

The 200 series is the Suburban of the skies. Popular, MX everywhere, experienced pilots everywhere, parts pretty easy to come by (we just did a windshield and had one in 2 days where others wait), highly, highly modified by aftermarket.

Why do people who haven't spent serious time in them bash them so??

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2023, 21:52

Username Protected wrote:

What is the fuel burn in a 200 at FL290 & 300 kts?

A lot. See this picture. +700pph for over 300 ktas.

This was 305kias at FL270 in a B200 with -61s. We could have gotten less fuel flow for a few less knots at 290 or 300.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2023, 22:20

Username Protected wrote:

What is the fuel burn in a 200 at FL290 & 300 kts?

A lot. See this picture. +700pph for over 300 ktas.

This was 305kias at FL270 in a B200 with -61s. We could have gotten less fuel flow for a few less knots at 290 or 300.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2023, 22:54

Username Protected wrote:

What is the fuel burn in a 200 at FL290 & 300 kts?

A lot. See this picture. +700pph for over 300 ktas.

This was 305kias at FL270 in a B200 with -61s. We could have gotten less fuel flow for a few less knots at 290 or 300.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2023, 23:00

I didn’t realize the Vmo was that low on a King Air. Do you have to pull power to descend? Why so low? What is Va?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2023, 23:21

Username Protected wrote:

Ok, I’m off my box. I’ll propose a comparison to get this going :

Buyer has $1.5-1.7m to spend. Needs to move 4 people (let’s assume 200 lbs each) to various cities several times per week - let’s say every Tuesday and Thursday. Longest leg is Atlanta - Houston / Atlanta - Boston and will be done 1 time per month. The other flights will all be between 200-400 miles. They are risk adverse, but financially very sound and can absorb the “cost of doing business”. They would prefer these trips to be day trips to maximize their time. Otherwise they would just keep doing these trips via airlines over 3 days.

Tell me which airplane is the best for this mission. Show your work to include the cost of capital, ALL Maintenace reserves (you must account for engines…) and fuel at $5/gallon - because that’s what it is here in Atlanta.

This is what we chose for that exact mission. Doesn't fall within your age range, but I think it will be tough to beat.

To be fair, I have zero history to prove my assumption, we'll see.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2023, 23:27

Username Protected wrote:

There was an emergency AD, all of the Commanders had the fiberglass cap replaced with a metal one.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2023, 23:49

Username Protected wrote:

There was an emergency AD, all of the Commanders had the fiberglass cap replaced with a metal one.

AD number?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2023, 23:53

Username Protected wrote:

I didn’t realize the Vmo was that low on a King Air. Do you have to pull power to descend? Why so low? What is Va?

It’s not that low; he’s just high. The MMO of Mach 0.52 (Vmo 259 KIAS @ 15,000 ft) is higher than the Vmo on an M600, the MU-2, the 441, the Commander….

They’re all within a few knots of each other but the King Air is highest.

Yes, you have to pull the power for a normal descent even with -42 engines if you’re dropping from higher altitudes. If you have bigger engines (-52 or -61) you’re near the barber pole in level flight and the power always has to come back to go down.

There’s an STC to raise it by 4% to Mach 0.54 from 0.52.

Va is 181 kts and, like all airplanes, is dependent on flaps up stall speed and not related to any particular design element. A high Va does not automatically mean the airframe is stronger.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Dec 2023, 23:59

Username Protected wrote:

I didn’t realize the Vmo was that low on a King Air. Do you have to pull power to descend? Why so low? What is Va?

It’s not that low; he’s just high. The MMO of Mach 0.52 (Vmo 259 KIAS @ 15,000 ft) is higher than the Vmo on an M600, the MU-2, the 441, the Commander….

They’re all within a few knots of each other but the King Air is highest.

Yes, you have to pull the power for a normal descent even with -42 engines if you’re dropping from higher altitudes. If you have bigger engines (-52 or -61) you’re near the barber pole in level flight and the power always has to come back to go down.

There’s an STC to raise it by 4% to Mach 0.54 from 0.52.

Va is 181 kts, and like all airplanes, is dependent on flaps up stall speed and not related to any particular design element.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2023, 00:01

Username Protected wrote:

What's the cabin altitude at FL270/290?

6,900 / 7,900 respectively. The extra 0.2 psi is good for about 500 ft better cabin pressure vs a C441.

My understanding is that most B200 owners don’t have trouble maintaining full pressure.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2023, 00:01

Username Protected wrote:

There was an emergency AD, all of the Commanders had the fiberglass cap replaced with a metal one.

AD number?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2023, 00:09

Username Protected wrote:

Using the word Mach and turboprop in the same sentence makes me giggle....

It’s silly, but it’s how the engineering works.

I know a B200 owner who was flying with a G600 that wasn’t configured correctly to switch to Mmo at 15,000 feet and still used 259 KIAS as Vne up into the flight levels. When he discovered the problem and did the math he found he hit Mach 0.57 in a previous descent with a groundspeed in the mid 400s. :bugeye:

Turns out there’s a little bit of engineering buffer in those numbers.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2023, 00:21

Username Protected wrote:

It’s not that low; he’s just high. The MMO of Mach 0.52 (Vmo 259 KIAS @ 15,000 ft) is higher than the Vmo on an M600, the MU-2, the 441, the Commander….

They’re all within a few knots of each other but the King Air is highest.

Going to leave this here

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Dec 2023, 00:59

Had one of those “flying a Turboprop low works well” flights today.

Flight from Columbus to Stuart Fl today. Crossing a system and 100kt headwinds on a N-S flight. Fired up and get ready - huh, still no PDC. Call clearance. “We have your clearance and bad news - you have a “flow control delay” (or similar) of 4 hours. “Weather in FL”.

Spend a few minutes game planning and decide to file for Savannah. Once at altitude start asking questions and asking nicely if I can get to S Fl? No dice. Unless I descend to FL190.

Keep trucking along and determine the required location to descend aligns with descent into Savannah, getting me just past most weather. 350 mi or so at FL190 instead of FL350. Some quick ForeFlight work shows early descent will only cost me 225lbs. Fuel utility shows I’ll land with 500lbs instead of 725. That works.

Descend to FL200, a few deviations, Ground Speed improves a bunch but fuel flow increases by 200lb/hr.

Land with 525lbs in a mostly smooth VMC flight for the last hour.

Nice having options for unusual situations.

Really didn’t understand the ATC restrictions. Storm tops were 300 or lower. Not sure how it clogs up there arrival machine.

https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight ... A/tracklog

Legacy Citation vs Turboprop