Conquest vs King Air 200 vs 300????
11-20-2010, 11:43 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: C560/G200
Posts: 117
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)
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)
11-25-2010, 07:53 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: C560/G200
Posts: 117
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
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
11-26-2010, 06:07 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 115
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.
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.
11-26-2010, 06:51 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by Scooter74
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
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
Originally Posted by zyttocs
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.
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.
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
11-26-2010, 10:07 AM
#17
Working weekends
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 2,384
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.....
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.....
11-26-2010, 10:20 AM
#18
Working weekends
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 2,384
Originally Posted by zyttocs
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?
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?
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....
11-27-2010, 01:28 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 115
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'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??????
11-27-2010, 01:37 PM
#20
Working weekends
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 2,384
Originally Posted by zyttocs
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'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??????
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
