I'm skeptical because there does not seem to be any AD record or Service Bulletin record of this. I don't use Google for those.

Next would be to search the NTSB records...

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??

I thought they were exactly the same engine. Just a little Beech pressure to raise redline on -52s up to 820°. -61s seem like the better deal out there for those who know.

I thought they were exactly the same engine. Just a little Beech pressure to raise redline on -52s up to 820°. -61s seem like the better deal out there for those who know.

The fuel burn is roughly double a 441 for the same TAS …… It'll make KTEB-KBJC (New York to Denver) going west, non-stop. Last time we did it, it was a very rare day and we had a slight tailwind and we could have made it to the west coast (although probably not legally!). Not easy to do that in a King Air.

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??[/quote]

The fuel burn is roughly double a 441 for the same TAS, the range is less, and the maintenance cost is higher. That is a hard tradeoff to make for an extra 6" of headroom and ramp impression. If I had more money to spend I'd rather buy a Citation than a King Air. We can fly efficiently at about 295-310 knots from FL260 to 350 and pick depending on wind/weather. I've seen 350 lbs total at 290 knots at 350.

The only legitimate complaint of a 441 is cost, but they are expensive because people value them highly - not a mystery. I still think they are the best deal in turbine aviation, with the only possibly exceptions being the other TPE331 aircraft (MU2/Commander).

Maintenance has been a non-issue in the couple of years we've had it. We happen to live near West Star, buy we've never been grounded waiting for a part, etc. Many parts are basic twin cessna, and the TPE331 is still being made with many overhaul shops. Garmin has a full set of new avionics (not so with the Cheyenne 400 or some other 331 birds), Cessna still makes and sells parts, and it has an active type club. FlightSafety has an excellent insurance course.

Screenshot is cheating as there's a 500fpm descent and a monster tailwind but still fun to see. It'll make KTEB-KBJC (New York to Denver) going west, non-stop. Last time we did it, it was a very rare day and we had a slight tailwind and we could have made it to the west coast (although probably not legally!). Not easy to do that in a King Air.[/quote]

I notice display is showing fuel in both pounds and gallons. How does it determine density, which is a pretty tricky subject?

How do you figure the fuel burn is double? My pic was at FL270, 713 pph for 305ktas. Your pic was at FL310 482 pph unknown TAS because of the descent.

That's 231 pph difference, or about 33 gallons. Approx $160 difference in fuel burn for a heck of a lot bigger plane.

???

I'm skeptical because there does not seem to be any AD record or Service Bulletin record of this. I don't use Google for those.

Next would be to search the NTSB records...

The results of a 3 second Google search -

92-CE-38-AD; AD 94-04-12

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR- ... 4-3841.htm

Claims without references have little credibility especially when it comes to definitive things like an AD.

Mike C.

AD number?

Was there an AD? Is this the cap on top of the rudder? Doesn't that also hold the balance weight? If the cap departs will it be subject to flutter?

Weren't there also structural cracks that SB235 addressed?

A RVSM B200 with winglets can do the KTEB-KBJC route right now, nonstop, into a 52 kt headwind. I’m not sure I would choose to do it, but it’s an option.

I have made a very similar 1400nm westbound trip nonstop several times. The accurate book range for my plane is over 2000nm, and that doesn’t include the benefits of the winglets.

I don’t think there is an altitude/speed combination where the B200 uses anywhere near double the fuel of the 441. The two examples recently cited in this thread used slightly different speeds at significantly different altitudes (350 lbs, 290 kts @ FL350 vs 700 lbs, 305 kts @ FL270.)

The B200 is often compared with other planes using assumptions about the B200 that aren’t correct.

Right now, KTEB to KBJC, FL450, 61 knot headwind, 4:38, 1000 lbs reserves, Citation V. This was max power, BTW. Slowing down saves some fuel but makes the trip longer in time.

At FL340, the headwind is strong, 77 knots. Even at FL280, headwinds are 71 knots. Winds tend to die down a bit when you get into the 40s. You also can cross almost any weather up there. The "fly low to avoid headwinds" tactic for turboprops is replaced by the "fly high and fast" tactic for jets.

Going the other way, KBJC to KTEB, FL410, 3:18, 68 knot tailwind. 1:20 differential.

That is a reasonable trip to make both ways.

BTW, these winds today are about average per fltplan.com for this date.

Mike C.

I’d say my maintenance runs closer to 40/80 than 40/60. I just did two hots for less than $100k after 3000 hours. That’s $100k every 20 years if I fly 150 hours a year.

Yes, I have to move a condition lever during the start sequence. I have one battery, not two, and have never needed a GPU. I got 4 years out of my last battery.

I don’t have the engines that will take me to 300 kts. I can sneak over 290 in the mid 20s but I like to go higher when I can. I’ll do about 270 kts on 470 lbs at FL 330. Max range with reserves is about 2100nm. My payload at full fuel is over 900 lbs. Zero fuel payload is a few pounds shy of 3,000.

Vmo is higher in the B200, Mmo is higher in other turboprops. If anyone can think of a reason why either of these numbers might factor into a buying decision, I’m all ears.

I can understand why an owner would choose a C441 over a B200, but the B200 looks better for some operators. I’m fairly sure I’d be happy if I’d bought a 441, but when I was shopping the B200 I bought was a better choice for me than the available 441s.