Conquest's

[Piston Twin]

Hi All,

I currently doing a research project on the Conquest II, and am chasing after the following information:

Take Off Power Setting
Climb Power Setting
Cruise Power Setting
Descent Power Setting

Standard circuit power/speed configuration
Precission and non precission approach power/speed/configuration.

Cheers
PT ;)

[HEALY]

It dont think it has a vref over 120kts PT, can't see why your interested.;) ;) ;)

[gaunty]

Research project???

Eeeeerm most of that information is in the very comprehensive POH and should not be taken out or used in isolation of it.

They are not a matter for debate, any operations outside those recommended parmeters or the application of "guru" or urban myth, WILL produce a less than optimum profile at the least or tears otherwise.

Trying to compare it with the other turboprops in its class is a waste of time, none of the others get close.:p

The hardest part of the deal is getting ATC to move the preceding Kingairs etc out of the way so you can get a direct climb to FL 330/350 after a GW TO.;)

[maxgrad]

Gaunty
whats it's uplift compared to the kingair?

[gaunty]

payload range = better and block speed is too. Can't put my hands on the numbers at the moment though, will have a dredge around

[fruitbatflyer]

Lifted from the C441 POH:

Takeoff & Climb 1669 ft lbs, 100% rpm, max EGT 450
Max Cruise 1738 ft lbs, 96% rpm, max EGT 450
Vmca 91 knots, Vyse 120 knots Vmo 245 knots .55 mach.
Cessna suggests Vr at 98 kias, initial climb to clear obstacles at 100 kias, retract flap at 115 kias, climb at 140 to 16000ft then gradually reducing to 130 by 24000ft down to 118 kias at 35000ft.
Descent can be any speed up to Vmo, power 'as required' (that's what the POH says) and from memory, RPM is left at 96% until on final, then goes back to 100%. One descent graph in the POH is for flight idle power at .55 mach into 230kias, but I can't remember if that gave an acceptable rate of descent or not. The other is for 1500ft/min rod at 200 knots, which uses three times as much fuel as the flight idle case, but would be a whole lot nicer in turbulence.
Cessna leave it up to you how to configure for approach, with a full flap final approach speed of 99 kias (Vref at 50ft) at max landing weight down to 93 at lower weights.
No doubt there are plenty of 'experts' out there who have come up with speeds and power settings for all manner of approaches, but for my money (if it was my money) I'd be keeping it clean and high as long as possible as it is a real fuel miser. Prop drag and a generous gear speed of 180 knots will get you down soon enough - it really is easy to just point it where you want it to go. About the only nuisance I can remember is having to fiddle with the rudder trim every time power is changed, but given the power to weight of it, not surprising. Although it is more than 15 years since I last flew one of these, I recall it is a most delightful aeroplane. It may not have the 'presence' on the ramp of a B200, but having also flown that machine, I prefer the C441 for superior performance, handling and fuel economy. I have done three long range ferries in Conquests with a 25% overweight permit, and while I would not suggest you try this at home, it will fly on one engine 25% over gross (on a cool day).

[Reverseflowkeroburna]

I heard a Cheyenne depart ahead of a B200 the other day and ATC advised there was just over 30kts or so of opening!!

Obviously the little Cessna would be better on fuel than either of these machines..........but how would the Conquest compare performance wise to the Cheyenne?? Gaunty is this similiar to the performance differential between the B200 and the C441?

Any punters out there with odds on the winner of this bout??:confused:

[swh]

You can get 30 KTAS between a -41 and -42 B200, depends on the Cheyenne, the Cheyenne I your only looking at 235 KTAS, the Cheyenne 400 however is a real rocket 330 KTAS. The Cheyenne III would be about the same speed as the B200 with -42 engines, but 30 kt quicker than one with -41 engines.

The conquest II will give you about 1800-1900 kg total payload, if I remember correctly about 500 kg of payload on full fuel, with the VG kit, think it was about 1800 nm. It would give you 270-275KTAS with the dash 8 engines, or 300 KTAS with the dash 10's.

Depending on the 200 will depend on the load your going to get, the -41 would generally give you a better load and range, but slower, you will not get the range of a 441 (about 300 nm less but with a bit more load), or Cheyenne 400, but it is quieter and has a little more room inside.

With the Raisbeck mods to the 200, its a useful aircraft, wing lockers, ram air recovery, full gear doors, enhanced performance, 4 bladed props, and gross weight increase.

There is also a 15,000 lb MTOW (compared with the normal 12,500lb) B200 about with tip tanks, think that would have the advantage over the 441 or Cheyenne on terms of range/payload.

[Reverseflowkeroburna]

Thanks swh, very informative.

I believe this was an older B200 in the comparison I gave, as I saw it on the apron earlier, so it probably had the -41s.

Yeah that 15,000lb King Air (B200T I'd believe it to be if it's got the tip tanks!?) sounds pretty useful. I've seen one with tip tanks down at Essendon the few times I've been there!

Cheers! :ok: