to RVSM or not (BE30)

[OnTheStep]

our company is doing up a proposal for a used Kingair 300/350 and everyone is wondering if it's worth kitting out for RVSM in North American airspace?

.
.
.
or just not bothering and running it in the high FL2XXs? how happy are those big -6s in the mid/high 20's?

obviously it'd be nice to get higher for the push when the winds are cooking (and the fuel savings...and getting out of the ice...and getting over wx) but enough so to warrant the upgrade?

tx in advance

[ferrydude]

How many 350's are cruising above 27K??

[411A]

Many folks think that just because aircraft are fitted with turbine engines, the aircraft wants/needs to fly high.
Can be true for most turbojet/turbofan powered aircraft, but not necessarily for turboprops.
Altitudes in the mid-twenties work just fine.

[4HolerPoler]

Whilst I'm not advocating that weather avoidance should ever be accomplished by climbing, it sure is nice on many summer days to get above 30 if you can - keeps you above so much weather that's bubbling in the 20's. Sure, there's lots of wx above 30 but it's normally better defined at that altitude.

My 5 pence worth.

4HP

[604guy]

Well I am sure that there are plenty of 300/350's that cruise above 270. In the late 70's early 80's the 200 I was flying at the time was regularly cruised at 290. But it all is dependent on your typical mission profile. You and your company are best in a position to answer that. If you are going to be looking at something like at least 25% of your flights of 500nm or more then you really want to consider the necessary mods to make your aircraft RVSM compliant. I know of a couple of corporate operators in this part of Canada that went as far as trading their 350’s in to Raytheon in order to obtain new aircraft that are RVSM compliant out of the factory. They crunched numbers and decided that worked best for them. Latest technologies, warranties and all that.

Not knowing anything of your intended use I can still think of numerous times that the capability of operating in RVSM airspace would be an advantage. Yes, the aircraft will be quite happy operating in the mid 20’s but will you be getting everything that you want to out of it?

If you have an interest in continuing this discussion feel free to PM me.

Regards

[ferrydude]

The point was 29K is tops anyway for that aircraft, RVSM or not.
27 and below will be for non-RVSM aircraft. is 2000 feet worth
200-300 thousand dollars????

[604guy]

Ferrydude

I have had BE200's to 330 on occasion, to 310 fairly often. I know of several 350 operators that take their machines to 330 on a regular basis. I talked to them today to confirm that info. Again it comes down to the average intended mission for the aircraft.

[bluesafrica]

Ferrydude

I used to operate B200 up to FL 350. Most long flights ended at FL310-330. Don't know BE30 but I bet it flies at least as high levels than B200. Good planes with long legs.
Blues:D

[moku]

Max operating altitude of the BE350 is FL350, and yes we have flown them at those altitudes between CA and Nebraska.

[OnTheStep]

duly noted folks, thanks for the insight.

the penny pinchers are crunching the numbers now

[ferrydude]

OneTheStep, would you be kind enough to post the bean counter's final decision so we folks could see whether our prevailing logic is on target??

[Cloudbasher]

Hi, We operate a B350 around Europe without RVSM...and to be quite honest, the cost of the kit is so expensive you have to do alot of flying above F290 to save that ammount of fuel!

Also the best levels (TAS) for the aircraft are around the F260 / 280...

Before the intro of RVSM, we used to fly the aircraft in the low 30's but we were often in the way of jet traffic.

Still...she's a great aircraft to fly!

Happy landings