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.




View Full Version : King Air vs. Conquest


mrgreenjeens
08-26-2016, 11:20 AM
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.


deadstick35
08-26-2016, 11:32 AM
Those are the reasons we went from the 441 to the B200. I don't have the DOC numbers, but the new -135 90's won't come close to your 441 speeds. A -52 B200 is close. What are your normal loads/trips?

mrgreenjeens
08-26-2016, 12:01 PM
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


deadstick35
08-26-2016, 12:26 PM
We have -42's and at FL270 we trued at about 274 and were burning 560 pph. We have Ram Air Recovery, stock props, wing lockers, and standard gear.

mrgreenjeens
08-31-2016, 03:38 PM
Thanks for the numbers. I know you don't have exact cost, but how does the maintenance seem to compare generally speaking?

Tinstaafl
09-02-2016, 08:21 PM
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.

deadstick35
09-03-2016, 12:07 AM
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.


Not all have the 3600 hr TBO. Without a certain SB, it's 3000.

mrgreenjeens
09-13-2016, 08:12 AM
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.

deadstick35
09-13-2016, 10:16 AM
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.

My company ran a bunch of B200's, and then thought "Oooooohhhhh....speed...fuel burn....TBO...." and sold them for 441's. Then a few years later, they thought "Eeeewwww....parts...AOG..." and now we're flying B200's.

mrgreenjeens
09-13-2016, 10:35 AM
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.

deadstick35
09-13-2016, 10:40 AM
True. I was just conveying an issue with parts. I have seen 6 months as a lead time from Cessna before. It wasn't for a 441 part, but you never kmow. Even for "as removed/serivable" parts go, the 200 fleet hs many more donors out there, like the guy who wrecked one down in Orlando the other day. Whites or Dodson is going to have some spares pretty soon!:D

mrgreenjeens
09-13-2016, 11:22 AM
Exactly. We just had an issue with a part that had a 60-90 day lead time for Cessna to produce. Luckily we found a salvaged one. But with 300 some ever produced, how often will one get wrecked? I keep asking myself, "WHY DID CESSNA QUIT MAKING THESE while Beech/Raytheon/Textron/whoever it is now keeps chugging out King Airs!" Of course I know it boils down to selling Citations.

680crewchief
09-13-2016, 12:15 PM
If Cessna made the 441 today it would cost $3-4 million at least. Textron wanted Hawker Beech for the King Air line. No reason to compete with yourself.

mrgreenjeens
09-13-2016, 12:29 PM
That's true today, but what I was referring to was in '84 when they stopped making them. They were competing with Kingairs and Twin Commanders and MU2s (although I admit I'm not familiar with their manufacture years) but I guess Cessna found a different path of least resistance.

deadstick35
09-13-2016, 12:59 PM
Cessna ceased all high liability production in 1986. That was all pistons and twin turoprop aircraft. The only Citation sales it could really hurt in 1986 was that of the pre-owned straight 500. In 1996/7 when things rampped up in IDP, Cessna said no to any twins. At the time, a recertified 310 was expected to cost over $1M. A new 441 would significantly greater. Also, the original CJ was coming to the market.

680crewchief
09-13-2016, 03:41 PM
Absolutely. Cessna despises the piston line. They view it as their 'necessary evil'. Their philosophy has always been to get rich guy from PPL to a jet.

I don't think the line of thinking is valid any more. If you've got money for a jet, you've got money to pay someone else to fly it.