Lease back

[cocknbull]

I need some help.

Pros and cons between the King Air B200 and the Cheyenne 3.

Also, I need to right up a proposal to a customer who is going to purchase the airplane and lease it back on our 135 and use it part91. What are some things I should consider and what should I include in my proposal? Any help would be great.

Thanks

 

[falconpileit]

pro's

ka pilots are more plentiful. ka is a better plane
piper is a poor man's ka, piper is faster than ka, piper fells like it is made from bud can's, but that's just my 2c.

 

[Newbee]

KA vs. Piper

Delt with the same issues a few years ago. The Piper is a good plane with impressive cruise performance but in my research and asking of oppinions, the 200 is a much more "user- freindly" aircraft. The cabin is larger, the cockpit is better equiped, the plane flys easier and for that matter, it is easier for pilots to transition into and there are more KA experienced pilots available.

I also have heard some mechanical issues with the Piper. It can cost more to upkeep in the long run. Parts are harder to get (they don't make them anymore!). I don't know so much about the Cheyen (sp?) but I had an air conditioner expansion valve go out on a Chieftain I maintained about 4 years ago. I waited for 2 years for the part to be "manufactured" because the piper folks were in between dealers and no one had them on the shelf. Lots of issues there!

Bottom line, KAs cost more but every FBO in the world can work on them and most have parts available. The boss has got to fly right? Tell them that!

Newbee

 

[Diesel]

I've flown pretty much every model king air out there and instructed in them too.

The king air 200 especially has a great ramp presence. It stands tall and has a great cabin. The B200's are awsome. We used to operate ours out of a 1500 ft strip. Nice plane with the full raiseback.

The Cheyanne allways reminded me of a navajo. No matter how many different versions they came out with it allways looked like a navajo.

The king air was bullet proof. You can get parts anywhere and any moron can work on it. The systems are simple and have the luxury of having 30 years of king air's before it perfecting it.

The pt-6's just won't die.

Also a lot more mod's for the 200 series. Raiseback, wing lockers, stuff like that.

Our owners allways loved the King Air's. They just look big and mean. Top it off, Top the seats, top the baggage and go.

 

[JetPilot500]

Our owners allways loved the King Air's. They just look big and mean. Top it off, Top the seats, top the baggage and go.

Diesel:

It's been a while since I've flown the 200 myself, but in the model I flew, you could not top everything and go. I too used to instruct in the airplane.

I just checked my old numbers, in the 200 I flew (with Raisbeck mods), if we topped the tanks, 2 pilots, 7 pax and no bags (everyone at 170 pounds), we would be 1,000 pounds over max gross.

8,750 - BOW
1,190 - 7 Passengers
3,645 - Topped off Fuel
--------
13,585 (Max takeoff weight is 12,500)

As with most airplanes, there is a balance between pax, cargo and range. In ours, to go full fuel, you could have 1 pilot and 2 pax with no bags. Full fuel gave us about 4 to 4 1/2 hour of flying with IFR reserve. We could take 1 pilot, 7 pax and 2800# of fuel. That gave us about 3 hours of flying and IFR reserve. Realistically, this plane allows you a lot of flexibility. Not too often you need to go more than 3 hours and/or take 7 pax.

Also, keep in mind that at Max Gross Weight (in a straight 200), you need 4,600' of runway to be able to meet Accel-Stop & Accel-Go distances on a S.L. Standard Day. You may not be "required" to meet these numbers legally, but I wouldn't go any other way. It is the same size and costs much as many light jets. You wouldn't takeoff in a jet without those numbers (I hope), so why would you do so in a King Air? Even with enough fuel to fly for 30 minutes with IFR reserve, 1 pax and 1 pilot, you'd need 2,800' of runway for Accel-Stop and Accel-Go.

Now, I do agree with you, the King Air 200 / B200 would be an ideal airplane for anyone looking for something in that category. I loved flying it.

JetPilot500

 

[JetPilot500]

I need some help.

Pros and cons between the King Air B200 and the Cheyenne 3.

The best choice between the two is the King Air 200, hands down.

Keep in mind another option, the Citaion ISP. For one, it is a Jet. It's faster, flys higher (above the weather), and for about the same operating costs as the 200. It does burn a little more gas per hour, but you are in the air less time in a Citation. Can be flown single pilot as well, if you are looking for that. Easier to fly than a King Air, IMO.

It's Great on short runways. If you compare the Citation and the King Air to the same performance standards, the Citation performs better than the King Air 200.

Typical seating is for 5, but I have seen some set up for 7 (but that is tight). Parts are very available. They are VERY easy to maintain...much easier than a King Air. Depending on your mission, it could be a very good alternative. Prices are cheap right now too. I've see a lot of them below $1M. There are also mods out for RVSM...which will be necessary.

Good Luck,
JetPilot500

 

[cocknbull]

Thanks alot for the good info guys.

If I go King Air I will go B200 over the 200. The extra 50 degrees of ITT should help. I do have about 17 hours in a King Air and about 160 in a Navajo. The Navajo is hands down a harder plane to fly.

I don't know if I'm reading these specs right but I see that the Cheyenne III is 30 kts faster then the B200.

I can say that I have been impressed with the range a ride of the B200. If any cheyenne pilots could chime in I would appriciate it as well.

 

[JetPilot500]

Thanks alot for the good info guys.

If I go King Air I will go B200 over the 200. The extra 50 degrees of ITT should help. I do have about 17 hours in a King Air and about 160 in a Navajo. The Navajo is hands down a harder plane to fly.

I don't know if I'm reading these specs right but I see that the Cheyenne III is 30 kts faster then the B200.

I can say that I have been impressed with the range a ride of the B200. If any cheyenne pilots could chime in I would appriciate it as well.

Don't get caught up with the extra 30 knots, the difference is minimal. On a 300 mile trip, you are talking about a 5 minute difference (1:15 versus 1:10), does that really matter?

The Cheyenne is OUT OF PRODUCTION, and that is a HUGE NEGATIVE. Maintenance will be costly and frustrating. Much better off with the King Air. I would not even consider a Cheyenne.

What will your pax loads and typical trips be? Might be able to help you evaluate better.

JetPilot500

 

[Diesel]

Allrighty. I should have said put as much fuel as you want on and load the pax because the average mission you can't overweight it.

A lot of times we used to fly around with the inboards empty so that we could load the seats.

I flew a -200 nonstop from leadville CO to Stuart, FL. 5.2hrs.

We would also do a military assignment where we would orbit anywhere from 7-9hrs in a B200. We could do more but jeeze after a while it just became mind numbing. Sitting at 290 doing circles at min speed.

The B200 would go right to FL290 no problems. Burn some fuel and you can go up to FL350. Did a really nice job going from northern maine to south florida. our typical trip.

I know all about the require accel and stop numbers but we didn't use them. (that's a whole different topic) We used to operate into a very short 1500ft strip and a 2000ft unimproved strip. Accel and stop numbers weren't a consideration. I don't mean to sound flipant but we operated just with the TO numbers.

Our operation was very much like a bush operation in alaska in relation to our missions.

 

[Airpiraterob]

leadville

when you took off you were already at cruise altitude!

I flew a -200 nonstop from leadville CO to Stuart, FL. 5.2hrs.

at 5.2 hours...how did you hold it that long? (check other thread on corporate about having to pee) the -200 dosent have that lavish facilities in the back....