Conquest vs King Air 200 vs 300????
 

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?

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

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.

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

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.

350 significantly farther range than 300????
 

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.

Reference the previous reply. I meant to compare the 300 and the 350....

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.

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.)

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...