King Air vs. Conquest
08-26-2016, 11:20 AM
#1
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 7
King Air vs. Conquest
Hello all,
I fly for a small corporate department operating a C441. We love the airplane, but because of maintenance costs and parts availability, we are exploring options such as moving to a newer aircraft, such as a 90s/early 2000s King Air 200.
Does anyone have experience with both that could give me a comparison of operating costs etc?
Thanks.
I fly for a small corporate department operating a C441. We love the airplane, but because of maintenance costs and parts availability, we are exploring options such as moving to a newer aircraft, such as a 90s/early 2000s King Air 200.
Does anyone have experience with both that could give me a comparison of operating costs etc?
Thanks.
08-26-2016, 12:01 PM
#3
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 7
A 90 will be too small. We typically have 2-4 pax but occasionally 6-7 or a large amount of equipment. The cabin of the 200 is pretty comparable, I understand it will be slightly slower w/ more fuel burn. One of our questions is how much more fuel. 10%? 25%? We fly a 1,100 nm trip about 5x/year otherwise 2 hr or less typically.
I doubt we make a move, but we are exploring.
Thx
I doubt we make a move, but we are exploring.
Thx
09-02-2016, 08:21 PM
#6
On Reserve
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 17
I plan an older 200 (not B200) I fly for 800lb 1st hour, 600lb /hr after that. It does slightly better but they're great round figures to use. For that it gets 260kts. I run it 2 divisions below redline temp ie 700/720 or so. It's stock standard except for avionics. So much so that Simcom used it for a photo model when they were updating their manuals.
Engines are 3600 tbo with a hot section inspection at 1800. At least the PT6 is easy to split to get to the hot section.
Can't give costs because I don't get the bills & sign the cheques.
As I recall, the Garrett in a C441 can run to a 5000hr tbo, with something like a 75gal/hr fuel burn while doing around 300kts.
Engines are 3600 tbo with a hot section inspection at 1800. At least the PT6 is easy to split to get to the hot section.
Can't give costs because I don't get the bills & sign the cheques.
As I recall, the Garrett in a C441 can run to a 5000hr tbo, with something like a 75gal/hr fuel burn while doing around 300kts.
09-03-2016, 12:07 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Tinstaafl
I plan an older 200 (not B200) I fly for 800lb 1st hour, 600lb /hr after that. It does slightly better but they're great round figures to use. For that it gets 260kts. I run it 2 divisions below redline temp ie 700/720 or so. It's stock standard except for avionics. So much so that Simcom used it for a photo model when they were updating their manuals.
Engines are 3600 tbo with a hot section inspection at 1800. At least the PT6 is easy to split to get to the hot section.
Can't give costs because I don't get the bills & sign the cheques.
As I recall, the Garrett in a C441 can run to a 5000hr tbo, with something like a 75gal/hr fuel burn while doing around 300kts.
Engines are 3600 tbo with a hot section inspection at 1800. At least the PT6 is easy to split to get to the hot section.
Can't give costs because I don't get the bills & sign the cheques.
As I recall, the Garrett in a C441 can run to a 5000hr tbo, with something like a 75gal/hr fuel burn while doing around 300kts.
Not all have the 3600 hr TBO. Without a certain SB, it's 3000.
09-13-2016, 08:12 AM
#8
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 7
Thanks for all the info. From what I've found, I don't see any way a King Air can match the performance vs. fuel burn we get in the Conquest. And the 5000 tbo is correct. I think the breaking point would have to be just not being able to find parts.
09-13-2016, 10:16 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by mrgreenjeens
Thanks for all the info. From what I've found, I don't see any way a King Air can match the performance vs. fuel burn we get in the Conquest. And the 5000 tbo is correct. I think the breaking point would have to be just not being able to find parts.
09-13-2016, 10:35 AM
#10
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 7
That's exactly what we're weighing right now. However we're not a high utilization 135, we're corporate with relatively low annual hours and parts availability/AOG has only impacted 1-2 trips in the past 3 years. Part of that is luck for sure, but it's not the same as losing charters left and right.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
