Another "I'm Rich" Topic--Used Turboprops

spiderweb

spiderweb

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
9,488
Display Name
Ben
I'm rich. I want to buy a used turboprop. I'm thinking a King Air 350. I know there are singles which are just as fast, but I like the redundancy, the room, and the quality.

Anyone want to counter with a Piaggio?
 
You'd better be really rich for either but why would you EVER want to trade out of one the finest, easiest to fly, well mannered aircraft ever to come out of Wichita for some piece of Euro-trash? Not that I'm partial.
 
Fast n' Furious said:
You'd better be really rich for either but why would you EVER want to trade out of one the finest, easiest to fly, well mannered aircraft ever to come out of Wichita for some piece of Euro-trash? Not that I'm partial.
Click to expand...

hahaha, in reality, I'd be pretty happy with C182--RG or otherwise, or a Saratoga. But if I were realllllllllly rich?

Well, YOU fly the King Air probably more than anyone else on this board (I'm jealous)! How do you think it is better than the Piaggio?

I've been in a few King Airs, but never the Piaggio.
 
Last edited:
Fast n' Furious said:
You'd better be really rich for either but why would you EVER want to trade out of one the finest, easiest to fly, well mannered aircraft ever to come out of Wichita for some piece of Euro-trash? Not that I'm partial.
Click to expand...

Because it is about 100 knots faster?

Because it has an actual toilet that doesn't require yoga skills to master?

Of course that comes at a $ (euro, really) premium.

Edit: Ok, I was thinking of the older B200. So it's only 70 knots faster ;)
 
Last edited:
Just to add fuel to the fire...

Moo Too...

Fast, load hauler, capable of short field work and well supported by the manufacturer.
 
NC Pilot said:
Just to add fuel to the fire...

Moo Too...

Fast, load hauler, capable of short field work and well supported by the manufacturer.
Click to expand...

I like them, too. But one day I was driving in for my lesson at BWI, and one was coming in on one engine. He couldn't handle the landing and he crashed and burned into an area just short of the airport. Freaked me out!
 
No love for Cheyenne, huh.
 
PC12 would be an enticing option. Fantastic range, comfortable seating, great short field performance. Oh and it burns half the fuel you would burn in a KingAir or multi-turboprop equivalent.
 
I really enjoy flying the King Air - well I guess I should say watching it fly itself. Not a lot of pilot stuff to do in that plane (with the Proline 21 package) but it's a great cross country airplane with very few surprises. However I've been a little disappointed with the fuel burn vs airspeed. I'm not paying for the gas, but I'm surprised anyone can break even flying these things. Just an observation.

(still a nice airplane though)
 
spiderweb said:
hahaha, in reality, I'd be pretty happy with C182--RG or otherwise, or a Saratoga. But if I were realllllllllly rich?

Well, YOU fly the King Air probably more than anyone else on this board (I'm jealous)! How do you think it is better than the Piaggio?

I've been in a few King Airs, but never the Piaggio.
Click to expand...

I've never been in a Piaggio either. I think they look great and sound kinda funky but I just have a hard time viewing them in the same light as the King Air, especially the 300/350 series. Not really sure if that's even what the airplane was designed to compete against was. Given the speed...what S/II or Citation Ultra? The King Air can make almost anyone look good. Truely turboprop for the learning impaired. :)
 
zaitcev said:
You'll love MU-2 then.
Click to expand...

I like the MU. Neat airplane with some great performance numbers and a ramp presence I can appreciate. Keep 'em maintained and stay up with them and you're okay and probably just lovin' your airplane. Fall behind and you're adding to a less than good accident rate. Kinda sad when you blame an airplane for things an owner/operator/pilot can control or at least should control.

Back to Ben....this is his fantasy post. :)
 
Yeah, like I say, that MU-2 crash scared me off. I mean, I got there -just- as the first responders did. I hear that it is very, very, very difficult to land on one engine, and even to fly it that way.
 
How can you compare an MU-2 with a King Air 350. The MU-2 is fat and dumpy....
mu2_kp.jpg


And the King Air 350 has such nice lines...
b350_mv.jpg


Wait... I guess that isn't the greatest example. :D
 
Everskyward said:
How can you compare an MU-2 with a King Air 350. The MU-2 is fat and dumpy....
mu2_kp.jpg


And the King Air 350 has such nice lines...
b350_mv.jpg


Wait... I guess that isn't the greatest example. :D
Click to expand...

Hey! It's my cousin from the old country! That's a German Flight Inspection aircraft.
 
My question: Why would you buy a KA350 for personal use? It's a pretty huge airplane.

The King Air 90 would probably do just fine for most people, and in that case you could make an argument for the Cheyenne or Conquest. Personally, I'd want a Twin Commander 1000 if I was just rich. Similar speed as the MU-2, with a more preferable configuration to me (MU-2 comes in a close second). But that's really more of a comparison to the KA90, not the 350.

There's a reason why the King Air has been so popular. It's a good-looking, good-performing aircraft that meets the requirements of a lot of different markets. Similar to the Baron and Bonanza, there's a reason they've managed to keep making and selling them for so long, while Piper and Cessna have stopped making any of their cooler aircraft some time ago.
 
No one wants to chime in with a turbine powered Duke?

I personally think a PC-12 is probably the ultimate propeller airplane. Go to jets and there are lots of nifty options, but you DID say turboprop.
 
Ken Ibold said:
No one wants to chime in with a turbine powered Duke?

I personally think a PC-12 is probably the ultimate propeller airplane. Go to jets and there are lots of nifty options, but you DID say turboprop.
Click to expand...

Oh, I forgot to address the PC-12.

I realize that on the numbers they look good and there's a reason why they're popular. They are very nice airplanes. I still wouldn't buy one. PT-6s do fail, despite popular belief, and I would still take a piston twin over a turbine single any day. Statistics may say that your probability of an engine failure are low, but if you become part of that small percentage with the failure, you won't be happy.

Signed,

-The Twin Snob :)

Disclaimer: Yes, I do fly singles sometimes. I just flew an A36 yesterday, and I liked it.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Oh, I forgot to address the PC-12.

I realize that on the numbers they look good and there's a reason why they're popular. They are very nice airplanes. I still wouldn't buy one. PT-6s do fail, despite popular belief, and I would still take a piston twin over a turbine single any day. Statistics may say that your probability of an engine failure are low, but if you become part of that small percentage with the failure, you won't be happy.

Signed,

-The Twin Snob :)

Disclaimer: Yes, I do fly singles sometimes. I just flew an A36 yesterday, and I liked it.
Click to expand...

I don't have the figures in front of me but PT6 reliability is fantastic. We operate 7 single engine turbines powered by PT6's at work and have never had an in flight failure that I know in my history with the company (3 years). It's definitely a major selling point for turbine single manufacturers and the numbers do match up.
 
I like the Epic but there is just so few of them and the company is not at all solid...The numbers and look are hard not to take notice of...

Ken Ibold said:
No one wants to chime in with a turbine powered Duke?

I personally think a PC-12 is probably the ultimate propeller airplane. Go to jets and there are lots of nifty options, but you DID say turboprop.
Click to expand...
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
I don't have the figures in front of me but PT6 reliability is fantastic. We operate 7 single engine turbines powered by PT6's at work and have never had an in flight failure that I know in my history with the company (3 years). It's definitely a major selling point for turbine single manufacturers and the numbers do match up.
Click to expand...

One of my friends has about 5000 hours of PT6 time (well, all in twins, so probably 10,000 hours), and he's had 5 in-flight failures. I'll grant that he's had an exceptional number of failures and I'm sure that your PT6s are better maintained, but I've also never had any piston engine failures, and nobody denies that those happen.

Turbine engines are reliable, no question. However, they do fail, just like every other mechanical or electrical component in existence. The thought that any component won't ever fail is pure denial. When the one engine does fail, you're going down, and I don't like that option if it can be avoided. When you're getting into the class of aircraft where you're spending that much money anyway (after all, this is an "I'm Rich" topic), I don't understand why you'd sacrifice redundancy.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
When you're getting into the class of aircraft where you're spending that much money anyway (after all, this is an "I'm Rich" topic), I don't understand why you'd sacrifice redundancy.
Click to expand...
Many "rich" people are very frugal, which is one of the things that allows them to amass enough assets to be considered rich.

The PC-12 and King Air 200 are so very similar, except for the engine issue, that it's always been an interesting comparison to me. The focus on engine failure specifically is the great twin argument, but so many other things are so much more likely to go wrong, that I believe it's a mistake to focus so exclusively on the odds of a single turbine failing. You can argue that the chances of pilot error in dealing with an engine failure in a twin add too much risk. I know, a King Air 200 is hardly a snake in that regime, but we are talking remote possibilities here.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Many "rich" people are very frugal, which is one of the things that allows them to amass enough assets to be considered rich.
Click to expand...

True, but driving a Lincoln Town Car instead of a Bentley (like Warren Buffett) is a bit different than a Pilatus vs. a King Air.

The PC-12 and King Air 200 are so very similar, except for the engine issue, that it's always been an interesting comparison to me. The focus on engine failure specifically is the great twin argument, but so many other things are so much more likely to go wrong, that I believe it's a mistake to focus so exclusively on the odds of a single turbine failing. You can argue that the chances of pilot error in dealing with an engine failure in a twin add too much risk. I know, a King Air 200 is hardly a snake in that regime, but we are talking remote possibilities here.
Click to expand...

There are other failures, but most of the other failures associated with twins are benign, or ones that show a twin's value further. This year I've had one alternator go out on me (well, really the alternator terminal), one mag go out on me, and the good mag on that side had a bag plug that was sparking on mag checks, but then started detonating in flight. In both of those cases (night flight over hostile terrain, with the alternator being in wilderness areas of Canada), in a single I would've been in a bad way. In a twin, it was an easily handled non-event.

You are correct about a pilot mishandling an engine out situation, and I fully agree that a poorly trained twin pilot is better off in a single. However, the response to that is keeping proficient on such things, and that is very much a pilot issue, not an aircraft issue. I've never flown a King Air, but in the Aztec and 310, losing an engine is really a non-event, especially in the 310.
 
Ken Ibold said:
In a King Air, losing an engine is really a non-event most of the time as well. They're very easy to fly.
Click to expand...

So, I'll take the King Air.

Well, actually I want the Turbine Commander 1000. :)
 
A fella near here that I met a few times bought a new Pilatus a few years ago and lost the engine at FL190. He glided in fine. Owns a King Air now. My mechanic cited four examples of turbine twins coming in on one last year here at my home AP--nonevents. Some were precautionary shut downs which leads us to another consideration. Can you afford to replace a turbine if it goes out and it's not an insurable event? Two folks on another board replaced a PT-6 last year at their own expense.

Best,

Dave
 
I've had 2 PT-6 engine failures, and know of many more.

Nobody is counting the failures and the MTBF from Pratt is just nonsense.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
So, I'll take the King Air.

Well, actually I want the Turbine Commander 1000. :)
Click to expand...
I think that one of the biggest advantages the King Air has over the Turbine Commander is that the last Turbine Commander was built in the mid 1980s and the King Air is still being produced. How hard is it going to be to get parts and service? Besides a mid-1980s airplane is 25 years old. Older airplanes are fine, I've flown lots of them, but the more complex they are, the more parts there are to break, so unless you have mechanics on staff...

Then there's the fact that when I was a camera operator for a mapping company in St. Louis they had a Commander 500 and a 680. Those were both maintenance hogs to a large degree. I think someone had to work on them every time they were flown. My general impression of Commanders probably came from this experience.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Many "rich" people are very frugal, which is one of the things that allows them to amass enough assets to be considered rich.

The PC-12 and King Air 200 are so very similar, except for the engine issue, that it's always been an interesting comparison to me. The focus on engine failure specifically is the great twin argument, but so many other things are so much more likely to go wrong, that I believe it's a mistake to focus so exclusively on the odds of a single turbine failing. You can argue that the chances of pilot error in dealing with an engine failure in a twin add too much risk. I know, a King Air 200 is hardly a snake in that regime, but we are talking remote possibilities here.
Click to expand...
The problem with these "I'm rich" threads is that there is no budget, and no consideration of what you might do with that money you would have spent on the extra engine. If "I'm rich", of course I can afford a twin turboprop, it's upkeep, and everything else I might want too.
 
I'll be happy to introduce you to some people who now find them less-enticing after the night engine failure at FL 260. And they will also be happy to show you the KA 350 they're flying now.

HPNPilot1200 said:
PC12 would be an enticing option. Fantastic range, comfortable seating, great short field performance. Oh and it burns half the fuel you would burn in a KingAir or multi-turboprop equivalent.
Click to expand...
 
The 350's are bought by the people who found they couldn't fill all the seats and tanks in their B-200. But that's assuming they bothered to look at the W&B book. Most owners just fly their 200's heavy.

Speeds are essentially the same. People who buy a 350 thinking it's faster are usually disappointed to find that block times for the two airplanes are almost identical. The 350 has double club (8 chairs) seating rather than the 5 chairs, 2-place couch and belted potty seat in the B-200. GW is 15k vs 12.5k for the 200. Fuel tankage was identical until recently, but Beech has introduced an ER 350 that provides more range.

Ted DuPuis said:
My question: Why would you buy a KA350 for personal use? It's a pretty huge airplane.

The King Air 90 would probably do just fine for most people, and in that case you could make an argument for the Cheyenne or Conquest. Personally, I'd want a Twin Commander 1000 if I was just rich. Similar speed as the MU-2, with a more preferable configuration to me (MU-2 comes in a close second). But that's really more of a comparison to the KA90, not the 350.

There's a reason why the King Air has been so popular. It's a good-looking, good-performing aircraft that meets the requirements of a lot of different markets. Similar to the Baron and Bonanza, there's a reason they've managed to keep making and selling them for so long, while Piper and Cessna have stopped making any of their cooler aircraft some time ago.
Click to expand...
 
Replacement (but not new) P&W engines and components are surprisingly affordable. We bought a low-time Pratt for a B-90 for 50k. Lots of engines now available due to Blackhawk and other upgrades.

Dave Siciliano said:
A fella near here that I met a few times bought a new Pilatus a few years ago and lost the engine at FL190. He glided in fine. Owns a King Air now. My mechanic cited four examples of turbine twins coming in on one last year here at my home AP--nonevents. Some were precautionary shut downs which leads us to another consideration. Can you afford to replace a turbine if it goes out and it's not an insurable event? Two folks on another board replaced a PT-6 last year at their own expense.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
 
Everskyward said:
I think that one of the biggest advantages the King Air has over the Turbine Commander is that the last Turbine Commander was built in the mid 1980s and the King Air is still being produced. How hard is it going to be to get parts and service? Besides a mid-1980s airplane is 25 years old. Older airplanes are fine, I've flown lots of them, but the more complex they are, the more parts there are to break, so unless you have mechanics on staff...

Then there's the fact that when I was a camera operator for a mapping company in St. Louis they had a Commander 500 and a 680. Those were both maintenance hogs to a large degree. I think someone had to work on them every time they were flown. My general impression of Commanders probably came from this experience.
Click to expand...

Admittedly, I mainly like the book numbers and the fact that they look cool. You are correct that the King Air has a lot of advantages, but as you know, in my world having a freight dog of a plane isn't a bad thing. :)
 
ted takes the term "freight dog" to a whole 'nother level.

Beech isn't exactly the most stable company in the world right now but compared to a lot of airplane companies I suppose it is pretty good
 
Don't forget that when you're "rich" your time is more valuable. If you want the joy of flying the thing yourself, you will have to take the time to get a type rating in the 350...over 12,500# MGTOW ya know.
 
Anybody that can't pass a type ride in a King Air shouldn't be flying any twin. They are the all-time easy airplane.

Lance F said:
Don't forget that when you're "rich" your time is more valuable. If you want the joy of flying the thing yourself, you will have to take the time to get a type rating in the 350...over 12,500# MGTOW ya know.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top