BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2025, 18:31

Username Protected wrote:

A King Air 350 would prefer to fly high than FL220 as well. Its fuel usage and speed will be impacted, too.

Mike C.

I'm sure the KA preferred to fly higher than 220, but what they REALLY preferred was to get to their destination as fast as possible. Isn't that why you said we buy planes?

Nothing impacts speed more than an ATC hold, and right now jets get them more than TPs.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2025, 18:55

Username Protected wrote:

There are many reasons King Airs are chosen over jets, but his point is a new King Air can be flown 1000 hours per year without much concern.

What is the concern with flying a Citation 700 hours per year?

The Citation doesn't need 1000 hours to do the same job because it is faster, which is the whole point of business aviation.

Textron does offer a HUMP, a high utilization maintenance program, specifically for Citations used in this manner. I don't know what the terms are for it, but one presumes it has more generous hour limits on inspections so the plane down time in a high use environment is minimized.

There is no magical difference between a King Air 350 and a Citation V that makes one intrinsically more reliable than the other.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2025, 19:46

Username Protected wrote:

I would say the Citation V is more intrinsically reliable because of no prop, prop governor, prop gear box, overspeed governor, torque transducer, etc, assuming equal reliability of basic rotating parts, fuel controls, etc.

And on the LUMP, it spends much less time in the shop than a King Air. Availability is a kind of reliability.

And no gear overhauls. That is apparently a big deal on King Airs.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2025, 20:09

Username Protected wrote:

And no gear overhauls. That is apparently a big deal on King Airs.

Mike C.

Apparently? You aren't talking about something you don't have experience with, are you?

What defines a big deal? Is a few hours every six years a big deal?

Call Trace; they'll get you replacement gear in hand before you've even dragged the jacks out of of the dusty corner of the shop.

What's the landing gear overhaul interval on a Citation V? I couldn't find a shop offering gear exchange for a Citation V, but I did find a shop promising a 45 day turnaround.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2025, 20:52

Are the runway requirements similar? I don't have a POH on hand for either.

I've seen B200s operating out of KPAO (2440') , I don't know how much more runway B350s take

Username Protected wrote:

This one is easy - those new King Airs are working airplanes - they have a job they do and they do it well. If a used jet would do their job the folks would buy a used jet but it won’t. You can take a new King Air out and thrash it a 1000 hours per year - a tapped out 12,000 hour Citation not so much.

What, exactly, is that "job" my jet can't do? I'm curious what it is.

1991 King Air 350, same age as my plane, $2.4M.

https://www.controller.com/listing/for- ... p-aircraft

What does it do that mine doesn't?

Why would a King Air be more reliable than my plane given same age and similar hours?

I bet it costs more per mile to operate despite using less fuel, goes slower, goes lower, maybe carries slightly more, has antiquated avionics, less safe, etc.

Why does someone buy that over a Citation that would cost less and do more? People do buy them, so there must be a reason.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2025, 21:07

Username Protected wrote:

We generally assume that operators who prefer turboprops are flying short legs.

Why are they buying 2000 nm range 300 knot King Air 350s for that? What a waste.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2025, 22:16

Username Protected wrote:

Apparently? You aren't talking about something you don't have experience with, are you?

I hear King Air owners talk about it, see ads for companies selling overhaul services, see shops doing it. Does not look cheap or trivial.

Quote:

What defines a big deal?

Costs significant money.

Quote:

What's the landing gear overhaul interval on a Citation V?

There isn't one. My gear hasn't been out of the plane since it left the factory 34 years ago.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2025, 22:32

Username Protected wrote:

At least use Chat.

Well, that explains a lot about where you get your info.

The Blackhawk 350s (not ER) with nacelle tanks easily do 2000 nm. Blackhawk had 4 of them in the shop, all fitted with the extra tanks. That makes no sense if turboprops are to be used for shorter runs.

7+ hours in a King Air seems excessive to me, any mission that far is better done with a jet.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2025, 23:44

Username Protected wrote:

At least use Chat.

Well, that explains a lot about where you get your info.

The Blackhawk 350s (not ER) with nacelle tanks easily do 2000 nm. Blackhawk had 4 of them in the shop, all fitted with the extra tanks. That makes no sense if turboprops are to be used for shorter runs.

7+ hours in a King Air seems excessive to me, any mission that far is better done with a jet.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 26 May 2025, 23:48

Username Protected wrote:

7+ hours in a King Air seems excessive to me, any mission that far is better done with a jet.

Mike C.

Really? Any mission?

You want to give that some additional thought?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 May 2025, 08:27

Username Protected wrote:

Actually, we SHOULD include training and maintenance flights - because if you have to spend 20-30 hours a year on training and maintenance, you're not spending that time covering distance in your plane, which is why you bought it.

I'll bet you are nowhere near 350 knots speed per logged flight hour, even if you leave out training & maintenance.

Wasn't it Jason C that used to say travel by jet was slower than piston due to all of the additional training requirements. I would rather be in a faster aircraft if going somewhere on a schedule.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 27 May 2025, 08:59

Username Protected wrote:

Wasn't it Jason C that used to say travel by jet was slower than piston due to all of the additional training requirements.

He flies a CJ4 now. Guess he changed his mind.

The argument fails when you consider passenger time.

Quote:

I would rather be in a faster aircraft if going somewhere on a schedule.

Absolutely.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jun 2025, 14:44

I tried to respond to the runway requirments question, but got snarled up in too many quotes.

Most Citations are certified per Part 25 and are required by regulations and limitations to be able to either stop or successfully continue the takeoff with an engine failure at any point. I believe even the Part 23 Citations have the same requirement due to certification Special Conditions.

Part 23 certified aircraft do not have the same regulatory requirments, although wise operators adhere to them anyway.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Jun 2025, 20:19

A CJ4 landed behind me at Billy Mitchell Airport (KHSE) on Thursday. It's 3000'. I was pretty impressed.

It's a little too soon for me to get "jetidice," but that was pretty cool.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 15 Jun 2025, 00:22

Username Protected wrote:

A CJ4 landed behind me at Billy Mitchell Airport (KHSE) on Thursday. It's 3000'. I was pretty impressed.

Larry Ellison's CJ4 operates out of KSQL, 2621 ft.

CJ4 has a proper lift dump system that other small cabin Citations lack, but also has no TRs.

Mike C.

The Cost of Pratt & Whitney Overhauls