BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Apr 2010, 02:31

Username Protected wrote:

I would only consider a King Air.

The Pilatus is a nice toy, and Pilatus has done a good job of convincing the bean counters. But PT-6 engines can and do fail. A good number of PC-12s have gone in with an engine failure.

MTBF values for PT-6 failure are flawed. Most come in with the engine only able to produce idle power. The FCU is a electrical, hydraulic, mechanical, pneumatic nightmare. That's why all the singles have that big RED EMER pull for manual fuel control. These engines have the FCU replaced and nobody is counting.

In a 20 year stint flying mostly BE200, but a lot of 90 and 350 time as well, I had two PT-6 engine failures. They DO quit! The King Air will bring you home. Simple decision!

I'm not trying to pick a fight or argue with you, and hats off for dealing with you're two events! That said, specifically to your example, the FCU on the PT-6 is not part of the engine. It is QEC - it is attached - it is made by someone other than Pratt. The record of the actual PT6, that is the compressors, the HS, the AGB, the power section and the RGB, is phenomenal. I'll take those odds any day particularly going through what I have with these engines. The single v. Multi argument is one that will never be solved, certainly not in this forumj moreover, all it seems to do is piss a bunch of people off. Personally, I think it comes down to...well...personal preference. As Twain said, there are lies, then there are damned lies, then, there are statistics. Bottom line, its what you want either in front of you, or off on the sides, or behind you - and, for you, it's right. It doesn't matter what the rest of us think or propose to know.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Apr 2010, 02:34

Username Protected wrote:

Tyler, that kind of goes along with what I have always said about the Beech turboprops (as well as the pistons like the Bonanza and Baron)- they aren't necessarily the best in any one category compared to the competition, but darned if they aren't the best all around. It seems that the competition focuses their attentions on one thing specifically here or there only to fail to realize that everything in aviation design is a design compromise - Walter and the lads back in the day at Beech got it right from the beginning with each of their aircraft they built - they were and still are to some degree the perfect balance of design compromise offering products that cater as much as possible to being all things to all people. In my opinion, that is why the King Airs in particular have endured the test of time.

Chris,

Well said....I admire the interior space and design of the Pilatus, but for a little more than $3MM you can have a new C90GTx and that my friends is my ultimate owner flown turboprop. Comfortable, spacious, fill the tanks and 4 passengers, great manners and a beauty to behold. Over the Gulf of Mexico its nice to have that extra "buddy" on the wing. OTOH if Beechcraft had "just" made a single engine KA200 there might not be a Pilatus today....

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Apr 2010, 09:41

How fast is a C90GTX?

I was talked out of a KA the other day ad told to buy a Baron as the KA is only marginally faster on 100X the fuel burn and money.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Apr 2010, 10:17

Username Protected wrote:

How fast is a C90GTX?

I was talked out of a KA the other day and told to buy a Baron as the KA is only marginally faster on 100X the fuel burn and money.

Hmmm, since a C90GTx would average about 80 gph total, that means the Baron burns only 0.8 gph. Wow! Those H-B engineers have sure improved those Continental engines! I guess this LOP thing is really working well!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Apr 2010, 10:25

Username Protected wrote:

How fast is a C90GTX?

I was talked out of a KA the other day and told to buy a Baron as the KA is only marginally faster on 100X the fuel burn and money.

Hmmm, since a C90GTx would average about 80 gph total, that means the Baron burns only 0.8 gph. Wow! Those H-B engineers have sure improved those Continental engines! I guess this LOP thing is really working well!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Apr 2010, 13:17

OK,

So, how fast is a C90?

How much to run one per year compared to a Baron?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Apr 2010, 13:38

Jason - it depends on which version of C90 you are talking about.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Apr 2010, 15:14

Here are some reference numbers for the comparison.

The early 200 BE20 we had was 8300 lbs. With max Zero Fuel of 10,400, we could carry 2100 lbs (2586 max in mains) and that left 2100 for fuel. In the low 20s, we burn at 800 lbs/hr (incl STTO) the first hour a and 600 lbs/hr thereafter. At 270 KTAS, that's toting 2100 lbs in the cabin over 2 hrs (540 nm) plus reserve.

If you have 7 folks (200 lbs each) total, plus 30 lbs each for bags, that totals only 1610 lbs. You can carry another 490 lbs of fuel which tops the mains.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Apr 2010, 22:00

Thanks fellas.

The comparison presented to me was a TN Baron vs. a new C90.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Apr 2010, 22:49

Username Protected wrote:

The comparison presented to me was a TN Baron vs. a new C90.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Apr 2010, 08:30

Username Protected wrote:

I was talked out of a KA the other day ad told to buy a Baron as the KA is only marginally faster on 100X the fuel burn and money.

100x ?

If a Baron burns 28gph and a King Air C90 around 110, it wouldn't even get to 10x. Cost wise, the only way you get to 100x is by using some artificially inflated number on depreciation for the turboprop.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Apr 2010, 08:35

Florian, are you serious - the new GTX's burn 110/hr?

That's 350/1900/2000 territory, and all three of those birds are faster and can carry a significant amount more weight.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Apr 2010, 08:48

Username Protected wrote:

Florian, are you serious - the new GTX's burn 110/hr?

To be honest, I don't know what they burn. I just couldn't come up with any combination of KA and Baron that would leave me with a factor of 100 (or even 10) between the two.

Edit: Tom Clements says 80gph in a neigbouring thread, I would think he knows

.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Apr 2010, 08:52

Right . . . thanks for the clarification. I didn't think that sounded right. I haven't flown a GT either, but I have the -1, A and B (not much difference between the A & B), as well as the E and F.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Apr 2010, 08:56

Username Protected wrote:

Right . . . thanks for the clarification. I didn't think that sounded right. I haven't flown a GT either, but I have the -1, A and B (not much difference between the A & B), as well as the E and F.

Apples to apples, to me it looks like a factor of 3 in hourly cost and maybe 5 in annual operating cost between a Baron and a C90 should be about right.