King Air C-90

[Dave Siciliano]

Actually, we were on an extended left base when we first called in almost ten miles out. He announced left downwind to 9. We listened to the AWOS again to be sure we got the wind correct and called back to say the report was winds at 110 at 12 to 15. He called back and said he got different winds. Ground called and confirmed what we heard very nicely (saying they were looking at the wind sock). He said he would just continue on to 27 but never said what he was going to do. We called about a three mile base and still didn't have him until we started the turn to final; then, he had gone around (or missed if it was a practice instrument approach) but never said another thing.

Would have just been nice for him to say he was going around, we were looking for him to land and were prepared to do a left 360. No chance of metal getting bent, but it's hard to work in with someone reporting they are going to the opposite runway with a tail wind. I frequently offer to work in behind someone or even several folks if they report where they are. We were coming in IFR, so, part of this was where Tampa approach turns us over by allowing a change to CTAF. Hard to talk on departure and CTAF if single pilot, but I try.

Best,

Dave

 

[ronnieh]

Henning, yes I think you have it right. Your terminology threw me a little bit.
Pretty much what Wayne said. The CT wheel (compressor turbine) is on a common shaft with the compressor section. Its speed is read in % RPM
The PT wheels (power turbine) are connected to the gear box. You would have to do the math if you wanted its RPM. You would have to know the gear ratio and use prop RPM to figure it. N1 or Ng is turbine speed read in % and N2 is prop speed, read directly. We normally do not indicate PT speed, at least in what I fly.
The term "free turbine" in my little world normally refers to the type engine as in the PT6 is a free turbine engine.
Mostly my bad in that I did not follow exactly what you said.

 

[wabower]

100% N1 is ~35,000 RPM. Most gearboxes are 15:1 to get max N2 (prop RPM) of ~2,000-2,200.

Henning, yes I think you have it right. Your terminology threw me a little bit.
Pretty much what Wayne said. The CT wheel (compressor turbine) is on a common shaft with the compressor section. Its speed is read in % RPM
The PT wheels (power turbine) are connected to the gear box. You would have to do the math if you wanted its RPM. You would have to know the gear ratio and use prop RPM to figure it. N1 or Ng is turbine speed read in % and N2 is prop speed, read directly. We normally do not indicate PT speed, at least in what I fly.
The term "free turbine" in my little world normally refers to the type engine as in the PT6 is a free turbine engine.
Mostly my bad in that I did not follow exactly what you said.

 

[ronnieh]

Yes and it does depend on dash numbers. Just for reference the -61 Ng 100% is 37,468 RPM. N2 redline is 2000 RPM. Don't have a clue what the gear box ratio is. Just guessing maybe around 17:1?? Don't think I have ever been told what it is, or perhaps I was not listening.

 

[wabower]

Most are 15:1. Prrimary governor, overspeed/fuel topping governor, prop size and pitch settings and other related devices (ground fine pitch) all provide further control of max prop speed.

Yes and it does depend on dash numbers. Just for reference the -61 Ng 100% is 37,468 RPM. N2 redline is 2000 RPM. Don't have a clue what the gear box ratio is. Just guessing maybe around 17:1?? Don't think I have ever been told what it is, or perhaps I was not listening.

 

[ronnieh]

Yes they do. 15:1 could be a standard ratio for all of them?

 

[wabower]

I've never heard a different number, and based on the commonality of design, my guess is that they are all the same. But like you, I may have dozed through some of the stuff, even if I was teaching the class.:wink2:

Yes they do. 15:1 could be a standard ratio for all of them?

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Still doing some fine tuning on this bird.

The air speed indicators disagree by two or three knots, sometimes up to four; so, I've got on my list a flight with ten mile legs at 120 degree offsets to see what the actual GS is to see which is closer to actual.

The altimeters were off by 100 feet at FL220. I asked Jacksonville to confirm our altitude and it corresponded with the pilot's altimeter; so, I'll note that for the next pitot/static check.

The Garmin 530 is right on when the test comes up during boot up. But my avionics shop said it was right on at 150 degrees and it's reciprocal, but got off as much as three degrees inbetween during a bench test; so, it's going back to Garmin.

The AP in heading mode flies so the CDI is about three or four degrees left of where the heading bug is. I'm asking the shop to look at that.

GPSS steering was installed. I've used it enroute several times now and it handles very well. Still have to do a few GPS approaches to be sure it will make the turns on the approach, fly the missed and hold.

Fuel gauges seem to be good now. We adjusted them as they were not showing full when topped and we wanted to confirm low fuel indications were accurate. I topped the plane several times and logged fuel burn. The gauges don't drop together and sometimes indicate different amounts of drop hourly, but seem accurate when topped. Had them down below 200 pounds per side and when topped, was within a couple gallons of where indications showed.

Some other minor things, but most squawks when I bought the plane have been addressed.

Best,

Dave

 

[wabower]

Dave Siciliano;890295]Still doing some fine tuning on this bird.

The air speed indicators disagree by two or three knots, sometimes up to four; so, I've got on my list a flight with ten mile legs at 120 degree offsets to see what the actual GS is to see which is closer to actual.

The altimeters were off by 100 feet at FL220. I asked Jacksonville to confirm our altitude and it corresponded with the pilot's altimeter; so, I'll note that for the next pitot/static check.

A man with a watch always knows the time of day. A man with two watches is never sure.

Fuel gauges seem to be good now. We adjusted them as they were not showing full when topped and we wanted to confirm low fuel indications were accurate. I topped the plane several times and logged fuel burn. The gauges don't drop together and sometimes indicate different amounts of drop hourly, but seem accurate when topped. Had them down below 200 pounds per side and when topped, was within a couple gallons of where indications showed.

King Air fuel gages are excellent teachers regarding learning to live with lowered expectations.

Some other minor things, but most squawks when I bought the plane have been addressed.

Best,

Dave[/QUOTE]

Sounds like the list is getting shorter.

 

[Ted]

After reading your explanation I think its a terminology problem. When PT-6 guys talk about the various turbines, the term "power turbine" is typically used to describe the one that's attached to the gearbox that turns the prop. I also think your original post had a typo glitch.

That sounds right. Thanks for the continued education.

When at an uncontrolled airport, do you announce 'king air xxx, 7 mile final' ?

I typically just announce "Twin Cessna" without my tail number. The type is the important bit. All twin Cessnas having roughly similar speeds should provide enough information for people to realize that I'm faster than a 172, slower than Dave in the King Air. I hate going into and out of busy non-towered fields. There is always someone doing his own thing, not caring about coordinating with others. Florida, I think, is particularly bad for this.

Still doing some fine tuning on this bird.

It sounds like overall things aren't doing badly. We are still working through some 310 squawks, although some of them are squawks with new equipment.

It's always something.

 

[spinfire]

I typically just announce "Twin Cessna" without my tail number. The type is the important bit. All twin Cessnas having roughly similar speeds should provide enough information for people to realize that I'm faster than a 172, slower than Dave in the King Air. I hate going into and out of busy non-towered fields. There is always someone doing his own thing, not caring about coordinating with others. Florida, I think, is particularly bad for this.

As long as you don't call a Citation "Twin Cessna". Or when flying a Cheyenne "Piper N1234 5 mile final"!

 

[kgruber]

Fuel gauges seem to be good now. We adjusted them as they were not showing full when topped and we wanted to confirm low fuel indications were accurate. I topped the plane several times and logged fuel burn. The gauges don't drop together and sometimes indicate different amounts of drop hourly, but seem accurate when topped. Had them down below 200 pounds per side and when topped, was within a couple gallons of where indications showed.

Dave

Fuel gauges are notoriously poor in King Airs. It is easy to spend a ton on money on them and still have them flakey. Just from my personal view, unless they completely quit, I wouldn't spend a lot of my money on them.

Some claim that Prist and Biobor help, and maybe they do. I think they work better if they are used frequently.

 

[Henning]

Still doing some fine tuning on this bird.

The altimeters were off by 100 feet at FL220. I asked Jacksonville to confirm our altitude and it corresponded with the pilot's altimeter; so, I'll note that for the next pitot/static check.

Best,

Dave

You can't simply adjust that out with the little screw on the face?

 

[kgruber]

You can't simply adjust that out with the little screw on the face?

That would probably just put them 100 feet off at sea level.

 

[Ted]

As long as you don't call a Citation "Twin Cessna". Or when flying a Cheyenne "Piper N1234 5 mile final"!

This is the point of using a proper type identifier.

"Twin Cessna" is typical for the 303, 310, 320, 335, 340, 401, 402, 404, 411, 414, and 421. That seems like a lot of types, but in reality the speed variations among them aren't that great. If I'm talking a Citation, again, it's a Citation - I'd expect a similar order of speed variation amongst Citations as I would amongst Twin Cessnas.

Using "Piper" to identify a Cheyenne wouldn't be very intelligent.

Interesting thing I've noted in Canada: They've started giving the full aircraft type. So when I was up there with the 310, they were calling me "Cessna 310 November 4-8-8-Sugar-Pop." Longer than I think is necessary, but you do know what you're talking about then.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Fuel gauges are notoriously poor in King Airs. It is easy to spend a ton on money on them and still have them flakey. Just from my personal view, unless they completely quit, I wouldn't spend a lot of my money on them.

Some claim that Prist and Biobor help, and maybe they do. I think they work better if they are used frequently.

Thanks. I was thinking of adding some kind of digital gauge--Shadin or whatever. I'll keep that in mind.

Best,

Dave

 

[Dave Siciliano]

You can't simply adjust that out with the little screw on the face?

Would that be the one right below my nose, or the co-pilot's

Dave

 

[wabower]

Is the fuel flow currently wired to the GPS? I forgot.

Thanks. I was thinking of adding some kind of digital gauge--Shadin or whatever. I'll keep that in mind.

Best,

Dave

 

[Everskyward]

"Twin Cessna" is typical for the 303, 310, 320, 335, 340, 401, 402, 404, 411, 414, and 421. That seems like a lot of types, but in reality the speed variations among them aren't that great. If I'm talking a Citation, again, it's a Citation - I'd expect a similar order of speed variation amongst Citations as I would amongst Twin Cessnas.

Actually Citations probably have one of the widest ranges of speeds between models, from one of the slowest business jets to the fastest. I guess they're all faster than a 172, though.

 

[Henning]

Would that be the one right below my nose, or the co-pilot's

Dave

Since it was the copilot side that was off, I'd say the little screw that's in the corner of the one in front of his face.

 

[wabower]

Why not just cheat the baro knob a dot or so and have both read 220? Hard to slice it much more finely.

Would that be the one right below my nose, or the co-pilot's

Dave

 

[Ted]

Actually Citations probably have one of the widest ranges of speeds between models, from one of the slowest business jets to the fastest. I guess they're all faster than a 172, though.

Do they have much differences in the pattern and approach speeds? That's what I was referring to, and I assumed (potentially incorrectly) that the general speed range wasn't much broader than a 310 to a 421.

 

[wabower]

Straight wing Citation and Aerostar pattern speeds are almost identical.

Do they have much differences in the pattern and approach speeds? That's what I was referring to, and I assumed (potentially incorrectly) that the general speed range wasn't much broader than a 310 to a 421.

 

[Ted]

Straight wing Citation and Aerostar pattern speeds are almost identical.

And how much faster is the X?

 

[wabower]

About like the 650 I think, and ~20 knots faster. I'm type rated in the 500 and 650 series, but haven't flown an inch in the front of an X.

And how much faster is the X?

 

[Ted]

About like the 650 I think, and ~20 knots faster. I'm type rated in the 500 and 650 series, but haven't flown an inch in the front of an X.

Ok, if that's the case then I think my statement is still reasonably accurate.

In cruise, of course, that would be a different matter.

 

[wabower]

Yep. The X is enough faster that you notice the difference vs other swept-wing jets on 600-800 nm trips. But if you fly on one all the time, I guess it doesn't matter.

Ok, if that's the case then I think my statement is still reasonably accurate.

In cruise, of course, that would be a different matter.

 

[spinfire]

I was kidding, of course. During my primary training I got into the habit of calling the 172 "Cessna 7242G" when "Skyhawk" is really more appropriate. I didn't manage to kick that habit until I transitioned to the Cutlass.

 

[DouglasBader]

As long as you don't call a Citation "Twin Cessna".

It's all relative. I used to fly with a gentleman who, when directed to follow the United 757 ahead of us to runway 04L, would respond, "Roger, follow the light twin."

 

[denverpilot]

I was kidding, of course. During my primary training I got into the habit of calling the 172 "Cessna 7242G" when "Skyhawk" is really more appropriate. I didn't manage to kick that habit until I transitioned to the Cutlass.

I had a ZDV controller ask me what a Cutlass weighed one night over Eastern Colorado.

He had a bet going with the guy next to him over who would control the most pounds of airplanes that night.

The Cutlass didn't help him much.

Cutlass 5330R was a beautiful well-maintained airplane back then. Then it was sold out of the small non-profit club to a large rental club and got the crap kicked out of it as a complex trainer.

It still wanders the ramp at KAPA and I see her taxiing by from time to time, looking beat up.

My favorite airplane from way back.

We found out recently that she used to live in Murphey's hangar at KFTG. Small world.

A little over 50 hours in that bird...

 

[wabower]

And mine is "Wilco, please ask him to keep his speed up."

It's all relative. I used to fly with a gentleman who, when directed to follow the United 757 ahead of us to runway 04L, would respond, "Roger, follow the light twin."

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Is the fuel flow currently wired to the GPS? I forgot.

I sure haven't seen that. We did the WAAS upgrade to the Garmin units; don't know if that changed anything. I'm talking to the avionics shop about what may be involved. We'll see.

Dave

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Why not just cheat the baro knob a dot or so and have both read 220? Hard to slice it much more finely.

Excellent suggestion. I'll put that in my co-pilot brief procedures; Uh, so as to not mix up what brief means, I'll brief my next co-pilot on that :wink2:

Dave

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I know we all have stories to which we relate all having to do with the plans we flew at the time. Once in the P Baron I had filed to Austin at 14,000 and was held at 12,000. After some period, I called center and asked if we were ever going to be able to climb to 14 and she came back and said there was a King Air almost directly above us going the same speed headed to Austin also. So.....I asked center if they would ask the King Air to speed up so we could climb. I heard a click on the radio with Uck Uck.

Best,

Dave

 

[wabower]

I think the fuel page on the GPS will tell you. If you're not gettting a prompt from time to time that probably means no.

I sure haven't seen that. We did the WAAS upgrade to the Garmin units; don't know if that changed anything. I'm talking to the avionics shop about what may be involved. We'll see.

Dave

 

[wabower]

Before you spend any money, ask Wriston if 100' error at 220 is within calibation tolerances.

Excellent suggestion. I'll put that in my co-pilot brief procedures; Uh, so as to not mix up what brief means, I'll brief my next co-pilot on that :wink2:

Dave

 

[jesse]

Before you spend any money, ask Wriston if 100' error at 220 is within calibation tolerances.

I believe it would be. If I am reading Appendix E to Part 43 (Altimeter System Test and Inspection) correctly the tolerance is +/- 140 ft at FL220. But you'd still be better off asking someone that knows what they're talking about

 

[wabower]

Wriston is the local 411/413 guy.

I believe it would be. If I am reading Appendix E to Part 43 (Altimeter System Test and Inspection) correctly the tolerance is +/- 140 ft at FL220. But you'd still be better off asking someone that knows what they're talking about

 

[kgruber]

Or you could spend a bunch of dough and RVSM your King Air. Then maybe the altimeters would be closer. I have flown about 10 different King Airs from A-90s, a lot of 200s, to a 350. I can't ever remember one where the altimeters perfectly lined up at higher altitudes.

The two heading indicators are usually off a little as well.

So are the power levers, especially coming back into beta. It takes a true artist mechanic to get them even close.

So are the temps.

So are the torques.

So are the fuel gauges.

So are the balls in the turn and banks.

More etc...

 

[Ted]

I was kidding, of course. During my primary training I got into the habit of calling the 172 "Cessna 7242G" when "Skyhawk" is really more appropriate. I didn't manage to kick that habit until I transitioned to the Cutlass.

I think calling it "Cessna", while not the appropriate call, is still acceptable. Speed wise, it's not going to be a lot faster in the pattern than a 140 or the like.

If I were to call the 310 as "Cessna", that would be a bit misleading. I'm typically going as fast (or faster) in the pattern as a 172 is in cruise.