Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




zyttocs
11-18-2010, 05:07 PM
We're on the cusp of buying a King Air.

Our longest leg will be Tetorboro to Oklahoma City (1157 nm).

As far as I can tell with average winds both the King Air 200 and 300 (not 350) will just make the 5 hour leg with a reserve, but any higher than normal head wind (over 50 kts) will require a fuel stop.

Any thought?

Also....someone just threw the Conquest into the mix but it doesn't look like it has any greater range than the King Air's.

Thoughts?

And I'm curious how much range might be gained with winglets on the King Air?


Scooter74
11-19-2010, 08:33 AM
The 200 will make the trip, and I believe the 350 would also. The 300 doesn't come close to that kind of endurance though (maybe with the power WAY back). 3.5hrs is about the max, you better be over the field as 4hr approaches

BBJay
11-19-2010, 08:48 AM
On paper both the 200 and 350 can climb to 350. In reality the 200 is out of steam in the high twenty's while you can realistically get FL310 out of a 350. The fuel flow on the 350 up there is about the same as a 200 at FL26/280 and a bit faster. The 350 is the plane to have. Check the payload on a 200 with full fuel, pretty weak. The 350 you can fill it up and still carry loads of stuff. Nicer handling aircraft as well.


grimmdj
11-19-2010, 08:49 AM
The local guys, National Flight Services say a -10 Conquest II will go nearly
2000 miles. I've always heard that they have good range, but no actual experience.
Dave

NYSPK9
11-19-2010, 02:35 PM
I've done the trip fro Teb to Omaha about 8 times, which is about 100 miles shorter than OKC. We've had varying head winds up to about 75 knots, flying in the mid 20's in our B200 and A200. Worst I've landed with was a 1 hour reserve. I think OKC might be pushing it for the 200. Have also taken a 350 out there, and you'll have no problems,,,almost regardless of weight and wind.

zyttocs
11-19-2010, 05:59 PM
So the 300 has a significantly farther range than the 300?

Is it just the winglets or something else? Does the 350 have more fuel? They have the same engines.

zyttocs
11-19-2010, 06:00 PM
Reference the previous reply. I meant to compare the 300 and the 350....

mswmsw
11-19-2010, 06:03 PM
We're on the cusp of buying a King Air........ longest leg will be ...1157 nm......As far as I can tell with average winds both the King Air 200 and 300 (not 350) will just make the 5 hour leg with a reserve, but any higher than normal head wind (over 50 kts) will require a fuel stop......Any thought? .........Conquest........how much range might be gained with winglets on the King Air?

Doing 1157 NM in a B200 or 300 will probably be ok with the wind at your tail. But with headwinds, it'll be tight with a B200, and even tighter with a 300. And this is assuming full fuel, which in a 200 means probably only 3-4 people on board, including pilots. The 300 will carry the extra weight of more pax (basically a 200 with a 14000 lb MTOW) but with higher fuel burns, albeit a bit faster. I think the better bet is a King Air 350. Don't know too much about Conquests, but they are small inside, don't know if that is a factor for you, might not be if you only usually have a couple of passengers max. Also, I think there is probably a reason - maybe lots of them - why Cessna made about 500 Conquests over an approx 8 year span (not 100% sure on that figure) and Beech has made over 6000 King Airs over a 56 year span. Winglets? Folks that I have talked to say that you'd have to fly the plane 50 years (or some such silly figure) before you saw your money's worth out of them, in increased range/better fuel economy.

mswmsw
11-19-2010, 06:08 PM
Reference the previous reply. I meant to compare the 300 and the 350....


Most of the 350's are RVSM'd and are quite capable of ops at FL330, FL340.....giving you reduced fuel burns and greater range, compared to the 200's and 300's, very few of which are RVSM'd. (Except for the new B200's, I'm guessing they are factory RVSM'd but not sure. Very few of the older ones are.)

BoilerUP
11-20-2010, 03:14 AM
This time of year, winds along that route at KA altitudes (upper 20s through low-mid 30s) are probably going to average in excess of 75kts...with many times well north of 100kts. Even flying a 200GT or 300 with cruise TAS of 300kt+ there will still be many times where your groundspeed is down in the 170-210kt range.

Cook @ KBMG has cheap fuel if you need a quick intermediate tech stop...

deadstick35
11-20-2010, 11:29 AM
As for the 441, it's been out of production for 24 years. Some odd ball parts could have the plane parked for months.

Maybe there is a 200T out there for ya:D

Scooter74
11-20-2010, 11:43 AM
The 300 and 350 are really different planes....

The 200 and the 300 are more similar. They share the same airframe, but the 300 has the 1050 hp engines of the 350. These eat alot more fuel than the 750 hp on the 200.

The 350 has a stretched airframe, longer wing, winglets, and more fuel (I don't remember how much sorry)

zyttocs
11-25-2010, 07:08 PM
How are the 300 and 350 all that different? Other than the 350 being 30 inches longer with winglets they are the same plane.

Scooter74
11-25-2010, 07:53 PM
None of them are really all that different on the inside (90-350), but the 350 has a longer wing, longer fuselage, more fuel, and usually better equipment.

I don't have a lot of time around the 350, but remember it having the better range than our 300. The 300 and the 200 are essentially the same plane, the difference being the 300 has the 350 engines

zyttocs
11-26-2010, 06:07 AM
Hmmm...I haven't seen any information stating that the 350 holds more fuel....

One of the problems is most stats talk about the 300 and the 350 as the same plane. I haven't found anything that really lays out the different performance numbers such as speeds, or range.

USMCFLYR
11-26-2010, 06:51 AM
None of them are really all that different on the inside (90-350), but the 350 has a longer wing, longer fuselage, more fuel, and usually better equipment.

I don't have a lot of time around the 350, but remember it having the better range than our 300. The 300 and the 200 are essentially the same plane, the difference being the 300 has the 350 engines

Hmmm...I haven't seen any information stating that the 350 holds more fuel....

One of the problems is most stats talk about the 300 and the 350 as the same plane. I haven't found anything that really lays out the different performance numbers such as speeds, or range.
zyttocs -

Agreed. I'm looking at the Flight Safety 300/350 book and the fuel quantity (and descriptions for the fuel control panel) are identical. Last sentence reads: "Total useable fuel is 539 gallons, or approximately 3611 pounds"

In the front of the publication, the first sentence reads: "There are far more similiarities betwen the King Air 300 and 350 (B300) than there are differences. For this reason, among others, the BE-300 BE-1900 type rating allows pilots holding this type rating to operate the King Air 300, King Air 350 (B300), and 1900 Airliner.

The two pages go on to reference some general differences (cabin size, wing area, dimensions, etc...) and then detail differences in the annunciators, propeller, electrical and rudder boost.

USMCFLYR

satpak77
11-26-2010, 10:07 AM
I have 4000 PIC in the 350. I have flown it into Mexico, Central America, and most of South America. I have cross the Gulf and the Caribbean XXX number of times. And that doesn't mean anything. Well, it does mean I am familiar with range and performance. With that said-

YES,the 350 can do FL 350. However min icing speed is 140 KIA and low FL 30's and above, any time you hit visible moisture and below freezing (which it will be), you need to open ice doors/vanes. This will result in performance penalty and you will 99% of the time be right at 140 during this time. In addition, the nose (ice doors or not) is pitched up just to maintain level flight at those altitudes that you are going to take a forward airspeed hit. I have seen 5 degrees nose up in "cruise" just to maintain level flight at 33,000 feet. And this is with basically full power on both engines. (Almost at ITT redline).

I have deviated around towering CB's at FL 330 while hanging at 140 KIA and it is not a comfortable feeling. Move the heading bug and you almost feel a stall buffet coming on as it banks. Not really, but you get the idea.

With that said, I have flown "mine" 5 hours 15 minutes but ONLY when I know the destination and surrounding area is soft IFR or better. If the destination was 200/half, forget it.

I personally routinely assume 4:30 as the normal day to day endurance and if my flight takes me longer than that, I do more in-depth flight planning and weather checks than if the flight is 4:30 or less. The plane does 4 hours all day long, piece of cake. But 4:30 and longer, you need to make sure your have Plan-B and Plan-C in your bag of tricks.

coming out of KTEB, they may keep you low for awhile. I used to do KDAL to MWCR non-stop but stopped when DFW departure kept us at 4000 feet until 100 miles south of KDAL....

The 350 airspeed/range/fuel tradeoff seems to work best at 250, 260. On long trips thats where I routinely fly it.

Remember winter westbound KTEB to Oklahoma you have winter headwinds. Go higher for allegedly better fuel burn results in stronger head winds. In the summer, no winter headwinds but you have TRW which forms and you may need to deviate, so your "straight line" route is now a zig zag pattern of deviations. Do you have the range for that ? These are questions that us turboprop drivers have to deal with.

the 350 is a capable bird but it can't do everything.....

satpak77
11-26-2010, 10:20 AM
We're on the cusp of buying a King Air.

Our longest leg will be Tetorboro to Oklahoma City (1157 nm).

As far as I can tell with average winds both the King Air 200 and 300 (not 350) will just make the 5 hour leg with a reserve, but any higher than normal head wind (over 50 kts) will require a fuel stop.

Any thought?

Also....someone just threw the Conquest into the mix but it doesn't look like it has any greater range than the King Air's.

Thoughts?

And I'm curious how much range might be gained with winglets on the King Air?

See my post above.

Real world, non-airplane salesman, Pilot to Pilot answer? It ain't gonna make it with any margin of safety in the tanks (300 LBS a side is my personal "fuel left when I land" rule).

Yes, I know what the POH claims and I know what Beech will sell you for range data, but....

zyttocs
11-27-2010, 01:28 PM
Thanks guys.....

I'm thinking that because the 300 and the 350 have the same engines but the 300 doesn't weigh as much or has as much surface area as the 350, the 300 should be 10 knots or so faster than the 350??????

satpak77
11-27-2010, 01:37 PM
Thanks guys.....

I'm thinking that because the 300 and the 350 have the same engines but the 300 doesn't weigh as much or has as much surface area as the 350, the 300 should be 10 knots or so faster than the 350??????

I don't know about all that, but I would buy a 350....

:D

clipperskipper
11-27-2010, 02:04 PM
The 300 is slightly faster, Raytheon used to flight plan them at 305 @FL310. There was a 1988 up on eBay Motors a couple of weeks ago with decent times, buy it now was $950K, it lasted about one day.

Formerbuspilot
11-28-2010, 01:56 PM
Thanks guys.....

I'm thinking that because the 300 and the 350 have the same engines but the 300 doesn't weigh as much or has as much surface area as the 350, the 300 should be 10 knots or so faster than the 350??????

Keep in mind that the "newest" 300 you can buy is about a '92 model and the oldest 350 is going to be about a '93-'94 I think.

FBP

zyttocs
11-28-2010, 09:03 PM
Yea we have a line on a 1984 300

Scooter74
11-29-2010, 05:38 PM
If it is all about the final $ to buy then I can't say much.

Otherwise, get the 350. It's a better more capable plane and the the 10kts wouldn't mean a thing in the real world.

satpak77
12-03-2010, 07:07 PM
Get the 350. You can resell it quick and it is improved version of 300.

MR JT8D
01-16-2011, 05:57 PM
That's what I was going to say, a Conquest II.

dspilot
01-31-2011, 06:11 PM
I am currently flying both a 300 and 350. The 300 is 5 to 10 kts faster, but the 350 is a much sweeter ride. I also figure 4:30 with full fuel, and if its close to that I start looking into alternate plans. I have flown a couple of 4 hour legs in each plane to destinations with good wx, but I did have the poh out and was using some modified LRC figures just to be safe. I like 600 pounds as a minimum too. You will get your best TAS in the low to mid 20s (its not uncommon to see 310 when its cold out), the only reason to go into RVSM airspace is to avoid wx, or get a good push, (we are not RVSM compliant, but I can think of several instances that I wish we were) which isn't going to happen this time of year going west. Either machine beats the pants off of a 200. I have heard that a Conquest is pretty fast though.

conquestdz
02-11-2011, 11:49 AM
I have some time in the Conquest II and have to say I loved the plane. It had lots of range. I have flown nonstop from Virginia to Montana before with light headwinds. The operating expense is considerably less than a 300/350 even with the SID inspections. It is noiser, and the cabin is not quite as big as the King Air, but it will do an honest 300 knots, and FL350 is easily reached except on the hottest and heaviest flights, then it is 31 to 33. Fuel burn at FL350 is right at 60 gallons/400lbs total. With 3160lbs you are looking at about a 6.5 hour range. The overhauls on the one I flew were less than $200K per side with almost everything needing replaced. Then you are good for 7000 hours. Not 3500 like the Pratt engines. As far as economy goes, the Conquest II rules over the King Air. That is why they have held on to their value despite there age.