Favourite Corporate Aircraft - And Why? [Archive]

con-pilot

19th Aug 2000, 01:47

Well Lav, this is a good question and I am sure there will not be a decisive answer. I have noticed that pilots seem to always think that the airplane they are flying at the time is always the best, or the very first jet they got type rated in was the best. So with that here I go.

I am type rated in the following aircraft;
DC-3
B-727
N-265
IA-Jet
CE-500
LR-Jet
Although not type rated I have flown the G-4 and Jetstar.

And now my comments;
DC-3, too old and too noisy (but I am very proud of the rating)
B-727, great airplane, (I have over 7,000hrs in the 72, the most of any type I have flown) it can operate out of some really short runways, with the long range fuel tanks in the belly you can get almost 4,000nm range out of it and with the PW 214 engine mod even more, easy to fly and it looks good on the ramp. Draw backs, without the engine mod it is a stage II aircraft, there are a lot of airports the 72 cannot operate at because of weight limitations, takes a crew of three and the high cost of operation.
N-265 Sabreliner,40/60/80/65, I have flown all the series, the 40/60 with the -8 engine was the most fun but they are stage II aircraft, the 80 model I liked the least and I have about 2,000hrs in it, no one single reason I didn't like it, I just didn't, the 65 I am flying now, it is really good airplane and for it's size has a good range, 2,500nm at long range curise (.71 mach @ FL 410) which is almost 7hrs (which is too damn long for that small of an airplane) until the engines quit. Draw backs, too small and it does not like high and hot airfields.
IA-Jet, 1121 Jet Commander, 1123 Commodore Jet, Westwind and Westwind II. As with the Sabre I have flown all of these. The first type rating I recived was in a Jet Commander, flew ok but with the first series the joke was that you declared min. fuel on takeoff, the "B" model was a little better but not much. The 1123, don't ask, one I flew was so heavy that with full fuel the co-pilot couldn't weigh over 75lbs. The Westwinds were a another matter, IAI fixed all the problems that the 1121s had and with the fan (731) engine and made it a really good airplane, especially the II (I believe the II was the first production aircraft to have a FMS [flight managment system] installed. the FMS 90). However the best feature of all the IA-Jets was that the bar was on the main cabin door so at the end of the day the crew could just stand there and drink away, you didn't have worry about falling down the airstairs when you had too much. Draw backs, small and flew like crap.
CE-500, they are ok I guess, too slow and too small.
LR-Jet, LearJet 24/25/28/29. No comment, except that the Lear 28/29 had less fuel than the 1121 Jet Commander, but it was neat flying at FL510.
Jetstar, I have about 300hrs in a Jetstar 731, one of the best flying airplanes I have ever flown, just wounderful. Draw backs, high maintenance and did that airplane love runways when it was heavy.
G-IV, I have only flown one a little but I am very impressed with it. Good speed, good range, nice east flying airplane, can carry a lot of people a long way and looks good on the ramp. Draw backs, the cockpit is supriseingly small for that sized aircraft.

So in my opinion the best corporate aircraft.
Probably the Falcon 900EX that we have just ordered, even though I have never flown one. So go figure. Of course the best answer is the one that pays the most!

[This message has been edited by con-pilot (edited 18 August 2000).]

Check 6

19th Aug 2000, 11:48

Con-pilot, impressive resume and interesting feedback. My only type rating is in the LR-Jet series. I have about 1/2 hour in a N. American B-25. In 1971 I flew one of the aircraft that was in the Movie "Catch 22". It was heavy on the controls as I recall, but lots of power and speed, and could handle short runways. Regardless, that flight was something I will always remember.

As far as Learjets, I have flown the 24B, 24D, 24E, 25D, 35 and 35A models. The 20 series are the rocket ships of course. My favorite is the 24E with the fuselage tank added, making it a 24E/D model. When light we frequently had an initial climb rate of 12,000 FPM - yes 12,000 feet per minute. What a rocket ship! I currently fly 35's out of Naples, Italy. The 35 has always been called "the old man's Lear Jet". They are fast enough, we typically cruise M.76-M.78, unless in a hurry, then M.80. The 35's can not climb to the altitudes that the 20 series go to, unless the OATs are very cold. In the S. European heat right now we typically cruise at FL330 - F370. For long trips during cooler weather I have cruised at FL410-430, which is where the 20 series cruise at all the time. The only drawback of the 20/30 series Lears is the cockpit is very small, kind of like a sports car. But, Bill Lear I am told used to respond to people's comments regarding how small his Lears were inside with: "not a problem, you won't be in it very long." The bottom line is that all of the 20/30 series are a pleasure to fly.

Check 6

------------------
Kick the tires, light the fires, first off is lead, brief on guard.

JJflyer

20th Aug 2000, 18:36

They say that bigger is better so my choice is the venerable Threeholer ( B727 ).
If Threeholer is not available, any other Bizjet heavyweight will do.

JJ

StressFree

21st Aug 2000, 12:14

Difficult question Lavdumper, I agree that this forum has become a little tedious lately.
For me its got to be the G IV, great plane in all aspects except the small flightdeck. I spent years on 125's but never really felt cramped but on the G IV you feel the need to walk around after only a couple of hours. I think the G V is supposed to be better.

------------------
'Keep the stress down'

LAVDUMPER

21st Aug 2000, 21:54

These are great responses so far - very detailed and opinionated. That's what I like to hear!

Appreciate all of the interesting responses and look forward to reading more!

Regards and keep em' coming...

fokkerjet

22nd Aug 2000, 07:18

Great topic LAVDUMPER! I'm rated in 8 types.
CE500
CE650
G-159
CV580
N265
F100
G-IV
DA50
The Citation II was a fun airplane because it's so basic and I think it flies like a big 400 series Cessna. The Citation III was nice but a little under powered from what I remember of it. The G-I was and is the best Gulfstream of all the models because it was so reliable and easy to fly. I flew one for 500 hours over a 5 month period and the only flight we cancelled was because we couldn't find a tire in time for the flight. The Convair 580 was really a great aircraft too, it has so much power. Really enjoyed the Sabreliner, a 60 model. The Fokker 70 has to be the best aircraft to date. A little slow but what a pleasure to fly with or without the automation. The G-IV is just a modern G-I, but not as nice to fly. And last is the Falcon 900. I really enjoyed flying it and had the opportunity to fly the "A", "B" and "EX" models. The Falcon's are so much more advanced then the Gulfstream's but from a comfort point of view, I'd rather fly a Gulfstream long distance then the Falcon because the cockpit seems a little bit bigger to me.

LAVDUMPER

23rd Aug 2000, 00:44

FOKKERJET,

Sounds like a great resume with many interesting aircraft in your backgound. It would be great to have such a wide variety of experiences - from very antique to very automated. You are quite fortunate!

Any other contributors out there? I look forward to reading similar accounts...

Regards

StressFree

23rd Aug 2000, 11:28

Lav,
I agree this thread is developing nicely.
As well as the G IV I've enjoyed flying a corporate BAC 1-11 which had only 18 huge armchairs etc. in a 2 room cabin, the galley was bigger than you would get in the average apartment! The most pure fun though has got to be the 125-800, this little machine has got it all, such a joy to fly! With the seat pushed right back you could stretch right out, which you cant in the G IV.
I also had a lot of fun flying KingAir 200's, these really are a capable aircraft for their size.
Keep it coming.

------------------
'Keep the stress down'

Master Warning!

23rd Aug 2000, 11:42

Finally someone mentioned the King Air, why only jets? The King Air is one of the most used corperate aircraft in the world! And boy do I like flying it.

Cheers, MW!

LAVDUMPER

23rd Aug 2000, 23:59

Master Warning!,

You're correct - the King Air is a fantastic plane - very rugged and a great performer - especially in hot and high conditions.

What attributes do you like about the King Air? What makes it such a great airplane to fly in your opinion? Which model do you fly? What other aircraft would you like to fly and why?

I am very enamored with the Pilatus PC-12. Has anyone else flown (in front or back) a PC-12? Not only is it a speedy and amply-spaced aircraft, but it is quite technically advanced with 5 optional EFIS displays (nice on cold and cloudy nights). The PC-12 can cruise close to 300 MPH on a single turbine engine and yet it has a stall speed close to 75 knots - it lands like a Cessna 172. It is an unbelievably rugged and versitile aircraft - it is easy to see why the PC-12 is popular among emergency medical units (EMS) around the world.

Alright - who's next? What is your favourite corporate aircraft to fly and why?

------------------
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed pilot is king!

mutt

24th Aug 2000, 01:23

Favourite VIP aircraft for me has to be the DC3, especially one operated by the Ford Motor Company of South America.

My favourite one (as a non-qualified pilot playing in a sim). GIV/GV due to their vertical navigation system, which i think is pretty neat.

[This message has been edited by mutt (edited 24 August 2000).]

con-pilot

26th Aug 2000, 19:53

Sorry about that, I completely forgot about turbo-props. I did fly a Kingair 200 for about 5-600hrs. Great airplane after Beech fixed the wing spar problem. All you had to do was put fuel in it and go.

On the other hand I also flew the MU-2 for about 500hrs and I hated that airplane. the series I flew was the J,L and N. They were horribily underpowered and with a full load single engine performance was a joke. MU-2s have the highest accident record of any civilian turbo-prop aircraft. Something like 40% of all MU-2s have crashed, someone said that if the MU-2 was in combat with it's loss record it would pulled out of action. I can't tell you how many times those damn things tried to kill me. They will not carry any airframe ice at all. Here is a short list of just some of the things that happened just to me.

1. Engine failure, oil filter housing cracked and engine seized. At cruise at FL210, could not maintain alt. until 5,000ft with full power on remaining engine, and yes the engine did auto-feather. One pax and about half load of fuel.

2. Cabin fire. A electrial resistor behind the baggage area shorted out and caught the fabric on fire. By the way the only door is by the baggage area. I was very lucky in that there was an ex-airforce pilot as a passenger sitting in the co-pilot's seat, so he flew the airplane (wx was vmc) after I killed all electrical power and went back put the fire out. All the fire trucks were a pretty sight. We were no radio because after I got the fire out I was not about to turn any electrial power back on. Had to crank the gear down and no flap landing.

3. On an ILS in imc ran into moderate icing just after the outermarker, I had to use full power (as in the prop and thrust levers were at the stops) to stay on the GS. All de-icing and anti-icing systems were working.

4. Jammed elevator trim and thrust levers. A wire bundle from the autopilot got looped through the trim wheel jamming it and the thrust levers. I had to get out of my seat lay under the pilot's seats and work the the bundle free. That really impressed the paxs.

5. Flaps retracted on a one mile final. Another (you got it) electrial short in the flap handle system. Had to be real quick on the power there.

I could go on and on, had to crank the gear down on two other occasions other than the one above. At least twice I couldn't get the cabin door open because it had frozen shut.

In closing, the funniest thing that happened to me was a takeoff out of Salt Lake City, Utah one hot summer day. KSLC is 4,227 feet high and I used the short runway (9,597 ft long). I had full fuel and one pax. After using most of the runway and was climbing out at about 500 ft per min. the tower controler called and asked if I had lost an engine, I said no, this the best we can do. He called back and said he was sorry, and I repiled that it was ok because he couldn't be as near as sorry as I was.

[This message has been edited by con-pilot (edited 26 August 2000).]

StressFree

26th Aug 2000, 22:24

Con-Pilot,
Phew! Sounds like youre lucky to be alive. How does a plane like that get certified? I'm not sure if they are on the UK register, can anyone answer that?
My days of single crew night freight on a Navajo sound a doddle compared to the MU 2.
Despite all the aggro I'd much rather be in corporate that airline, especially on a ship like the G IV - sheer pleasure.

[This message has been edited by StressFree (edited 26 August 2000).]

mutt

27th Aug 2000, 00:23

I walked around a couple of Beach Starships in Van Nuys yesterday, they are beautiful looking aircraft, has anyone flown one??

Mutt

Latte tester

27th Aug 2000, 02:09

Why is it the G4/G5 always comes up as the best....obviously you guys haven't had a good look around one. First the G4/G5 are basically the same, in fact they are made on the same assembly line, the G5 just gets more metal. Ever had a good look at the wing wing of a G4/G5? Quite a few fences, a sh-t load of vortex generators and the wing shape?, all this on a so called state-of-the-art aircraft.
How about the Challenger 604? Sure, not a high flyer, but a great big cabin, huge flight deck, goes a long way and if you don't believe me, ask Clay Lacy. The Global Express has not been mentioned either, why not? It sure is kicking the sh-t out of the G5's reputation...more records in the book. Yes it took longer to get to customers, but take a good long look at it and you will not see stall fences, vortex generators or any other pieces of extra stuff. Why? Maybe because the airplane is new, not just another longer/bigger G2. As for the Falcon 900EX, yes a very nice airplane, but for about US$8 million less I would go for the Challenger 604, ( 500nm difference, slightly smaller cabin length and my US$8M savings wisely invested will pay for my Challengers operating costs for quite a while).
Don't forget people, Bombardier Aerospace is the 3rd largest aircraft manufacturer in the world, they didn't get there by making crap.

That's my rant for the week, Latte anyone?

rick1128

27th Aug 2000, 08:43

Typed in LR-Jet, HS125 and SA227. Flown B727's, CV-580, IA1124A and other T/Ps. For me the best corporate jet has to be the Lear. Color me different, but I love the 20 series. Economical operation and performance in one package. Yes the fuel burn is a little high, but it is less than any other turbojet. And single engine performance is great. Lost an engine last year on takeoff. My climb rate was over 2000 ft/min. I climbed to FL180 and indicated 300 kts. (I couldn't go back to my departure airport due to weather) There are several corporate jets that have a hard time doing that on two engines. The Hawker is reliable and comfortable.

In the T/P area, my vote goes to the CV-580. It is an honest airplane. At sea level it is a top it off, fill the seats and fill the baggage compartments airplane. It is a little heavy on the controls and the systems are more than a little different, but it works.

For my money newer is not always better.

hurlingham

27th Aug 2000, 14:05

I was going to mention the DH104 but it would appear to be a little outclassed.

CLIMB FL450 BYE BYE

27th Aug 2000, 14:51

GIV at FL450 say no more.
I flew in one of the last Boeing 707 off the line which was operated by one of the Arab Royal Flights it was unashamed luxury.

LAVDUMPER

28th Aug 2000, 00:57

Excellent replys everyone - very informative and opinionated - keep em' coming!!!!

I'd have to agree with Latte Tester about the Challenger 604. It is a fantastic airplane and I have not met one 604 pilot who didn't love the airplane (nice performance and spacious/high-tech flight deck) - of course, they would all trade in their 604 keys for Global Express keys...

Interesting comments about some of the "older" props. I guess, when it comes down to it, reliability and that "sturdy feeling" really do count for something. I, too, have spoken with pilots with Convair and DC-3 time in their illustrious histories who prefer those airplanes to their current higher-tech heavy iron. Sounds like the Lear 20 series is a crowd-pleaser as well.

I'm interested in all comments and opinions related to your favourite corporate airplanes (big and small). Also, anyone out there who is currently flying a Global Express, GV, BBJ or Airbus CJ who'd like to contribute? All contributors welcome...

Regards

------------------
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed pilot is king!

hansi

28th Aug 2000, 15:43

One eyed pilot? Hello? anyone heard of depth perception?

Anyhow DC-3 Greatest airplane ever built got 400 hours trucking freight and pax around in some ex USAAF 1944 models. I've had more engine problems in modern citations than in those old girls.
Ahh the romance of a sunny sunday afternoon
big radials burbling away...ahh the freezing to death at 3am in winter after 5 hours at 10K with no heating and even the thermos has frozen. Lovely. :)

StressFree

28th Aug 2000, 22:12

Latte Tester,
Maybe the G IV is mentioned a lot because is really is a great plane. I'm not saying the C604 etc. are not also excellent machines but they just dont have the 'class' of a Gulfstream. You say that G IV/GV is a stretched G2, obviously you hav'nt had a good look around one. Also what is the Global Express if not a stretched 604????
On the subject of props the King Air needs serious praise, its reliable, comfortable, cheap to run and great to fly. If I could make the same cash as flying larger jets I would consider a job on a Beech.
Phew, I feel better for a good stand on the old soap box

------------------
'Keep the stress down'

Shanwick Shanwick

28th Aug 2000, 22:42

Flew a corporate 737 once!

Actually, it was an Icelandair aircraft but I was the only PAX so they let me have a go.

Does that count?

LAVDUMPER

28th Aug 2000, 23:00

Shanwick Shanwick,

Sure, flying a corporate 737 counts. How did you like it? How did it compare with other aircraft you have flown?

I have to agree with Stressfree, the GIV/GV series is intrinsically "classy" - and they look awesome on the ramp whenever you see them.

I recently had the opportunity to sit in the flight deck of a Flexjet Lear 60 and really enjoyed it. Nice combination of EFIS and analog - and the cockpit fit like a glove - it felt really natural. Most of the Lear 60 crews I have talked to really enjoy the aircraft for its sturdy handling and fighter-like performance. It's an ego booster...

Who else is out there who'd like to contribute? Details and opinions welcome...

Regards

Check 6

29th Aug 2000, 00:31

I neglected to mention in my previous reply above. I also had an engine failure on takeoff in a Lear, a 24B. This was at Tucson, Arizona (KTUS) in late June 1991 with OAT at 42 C. I was receiving training for my ATP/type rating doing touch and goes. We were accelerating through V1 when the right engine spooled back, it did not actually flame-out, just went to an idle. It turned out the fuel control failed. We climbed to pattern altitude at 1,500 FPM and returned for a landing. I already had approximately 25 hours in the FlightSafety 20 series simulator, but the simulator did not completely "simulate" the directional control "challenge" in real life! I would also agree that the KingAirs are great airplanes, having flown the B-90 and B-200. I have not flown the DC-3 (C-47), but have jump seated in them in the Caribbean, and they are truly a great airplane.

------------------
Kick the tires, light the fires, first off is lead, brief on guard.

Check 6

29th Aug 2000, 00:31

I neglected to mention in my previous reply above that I also had an engine failure on takeoff in a Lear, a 24B. This was at Tucson, Arizona (KTUS) in late June 1991 with OAT at 42 C. I was receiving training for my ATP/type rating doing touch and goes. We were accelerating through V1 when the right engine spooled back, it did not actually flame-out, just went to an idle. It turned out the fuel control failed. We climbed to pattern altitude at 1,500 FPM and returned for a landing. I already had approximately 25 hours in the FlightSafety 20 series simulator, but the simulator did not completely "simulate" the directional control "challenge" in real life! I would also agree that the KingAirs are great airplanes, having flown the B-90 and B-200. I have not flown the DC-3 (C-47), but have jump seated in them in the Caribbean, and they are truly a great airplane.

Check 6
------------------
Kick the tires, light the fires, first off is lead, brief on guard.

[This message has been edited by Check 6 (edited 28 August 2000).]

StressFree

29th Aug 2000, 22:37

Shanwick,
Youre back, havn't seen you in these pages for a while, hows it going?

------------------
'Keep the stress down'

spooky

30th Aug 2000, 00:00

Hello people,
I've had some quite interesting experiences, thankfully in the past, in those 4 series Cessna twins. Single crew at night in ghastly wx across the North Sea and other inhospitable places. Some people call it an apprenticeship.
Happily I now fly a C560 ultra and I have to say I look down at dem clouds and weather and anyone still doing it down there has my admiration.
I love the handling of these straight wing Cessnas as we can still arrive in fairly small fields but we don't have the aggravation getting there.
I'm sure there's better out there but I love my Citation.

LAVDUMPER

30th Aug 2000, 20:12

Spooky,

I suppose we all have interesting/scary stories about our training aircraft.

The Ultra is a great airplane. I am impressed with its 3 big EFIS screens and relatively clean cockpit. It also looks like a fun aircraft to fly. Unfortunately, Citations in the States have earned the nickname - "Slowtation" - which I think is relatively unwarranted. Afterall, the Citation X blows everything away...

Keep the interesting contributions coming...

Regards

spooky

31st Aug 2000, 10:11

Hi Lav,
yes, our formative experiences would fill another column. Would it be called 'war stories'?
The ultra in comparative terms is also a slowtation really. At isa + some it will go straight from sea level to 410 quite well at mtow but then sits at M 0.6plus and doesn't hit 0.7 until after about an hour and a half. Eventually it'll get to 0.72 ish.
So compared to the 550 series its a rocket ship. Its nice to see TAS of 410 or so.
Very quiet aeroplane inside and a superb office though not a lot of space for the library.
Now lets discuss the stiff landing legs and the fact that Cessna in the 21st century still haven't managed to heat the fuel tanks. Don't you just love that Dice anti-ice stuff???
Bring on the X.........
all the best

[This message has been edited by spooky (edited 31 August 2000).]

hansi

1st Sep 2000, 13:23

Dice I guess is the same as Prist a fuel anti ice additive that comes in an aerosol type can.
Its also a massive cancer risk so the sooner its banned the better.
Pre-mix at the refinery thats the way ahead.
And if you do have to use it stop breathing ( for about a week seems best)

LAVDUMPER

2nd Sep 2000, 07:47

Sat in the sharp end of a Challenger 601-3A the other day. Despite the fact that it is not as new as its younger 604 sibling, it was still an awesome view. The flight decks on Challenger-series aircraft are very roomy - nice for long flights. This 601-3A had a nice 5-tube EFIS setup and new radios - a very nice package overall.

The pilots informed me that they had taken this bird to four continents and truly enjoyed the ride (and view) on every long segment.

Any Challenger pilots out there who would like to confirm these opinions? Anyone else want to share other aircraft opinions?

Regards

Shanwick Shanwick

2nd Sep 2000, 18:32

Fine thanks Stress Free. Just been a little busy lately. Been sleeping a lot too!

How's yourself?

Dragshoot

2nd Sep 2000, 19:37

Favorite aircraft to hand fly is Lear 35, particularly without pax and light. Often asked what our rare of climb is, Standard reply is " Dont Quite know,VSI only goes up to 6,000 FPM and the needle's on the stops". Downside is cold feet on long sectors, very cramped cockpit, and a bog that is more likley to be found on a 1973 VW Caravanette!

Many have mentioned the 604, fine aircraft with a front office large enough to accomodate the population of small town, great avionics and FMS. Downside, without the autopilot it has all the handling qualities of a 1973 VW Caravanette with a knackered steering rack!

Favorite turboprop, Kingair 200, Good build quality and reliability, feels like a well engineered German motor.(but not the afore mentioned VW product I might add).

mutt

3rd Sep 2000, 22:41

Definitely the Cessna Citation especially as i just got type rated on it three days ago!!

Mutt

LAVDUMPER

4th Sep 2000, 04:52

Mutt,

Way to go! What type of Citation do you expect to fly? They're a bit slow, but fun to fly nonetheless... How does it compare to other aicraft you have flown?

By the way, I actually saw a Global Express for the first time yesterday. WOW! That airplane is both beautiful and large - very, very impressive on the ramp. I saw one of the pilots leave the aircraft and he looked quite smug (deservingly so)...

Would love to hear some more aircraft reviews and opinions...

Regards

Latte tester

5th Sep 2000, 20:21

Stress Free, yes the G4/5 are nice aircraft however they are extensions of the G2 because of the "grandfather clauses" of aircraft design GA has been able to make the airplane longer and heavier and yes faster too. I have had a good look at a few - before paint and interior, that's where one gets a real good look. As for the GEX being a big 604, I suggest you look again, the GEX was a new design from the ground up, one of the reasons for delays in the program, there was nothing to base it on. The fuselage section, although of similar design is different and the slatted wing was a first for the company. I do agree that GA builds very nice aircraft, but don't pass up the opportunity to fly a BA product. "Try it, you'll like it" I know I do!!

Latte time

Latte tester

6th Sep 2000, 06:21

Dragshoot, ever heard of trim? The 604 maybe heavier on the controls than the L35, so what, it's a big airplane with almost as much fuel as the 35 at MTOW....I think you need more time in larger jets.

Dragshoot

6th Sep 2000, 22:48

Latte Tester,

Dont get me wrong here, the 604 is a fantastic machine and you would have to drag me kicking and screaming into anything else. I would certainly not trade in a 604 to fly a Lear (any model), but they are both great to fly but for entirly different reasons. You cannot compare a classic sports car to a modern day Mercedes.

Anyway, who says bigger is better? (apart from my wife that is)

[This message has been edited by Dragshoot (edited 06 September 2000).]

Weary

7th Sep 2000, 19:44

Since I saw someone else mention turboprops, my favourite has gotta be the Cessna C441 Conquest II.
It has all the qualities of a classic "pilots aeroplane", and they are a joy to fly. Delightful control pressure/harmonisation, user-friendly (and robust) engines - generously overpowered.
It is low tech enough to be operated single pilot (or with the autopilot off- and it's fun doing it), but it also goes like hell. What other aircraft burns only 360 pounds of fuel per hour while carrying 12 people at 35,000ft and 280 kts (TAS)?. What other turboprop can you turn around in 10 minutes on a 40 degree Celcius day without hot start problems?. They went faster, further, higher, and used less fuel than the Super KingAirs we had, AND the passengers had more leg room!! I've flown them out of filthy short airstrips on stinking hot days at maximum load and they still climbed better than much larger equipment I've flown. No problem slowing them down either. High gear and flap extension speeds and good braking from the props in disc if you needed it. You could slide on down the barber's pole in a 1:1 descent profile and still get in. Short field landings were no problem - its got reverse and big propellers.
But the bottom line is they were fun. Serious, big-time, grin-on-you-face fun. In fact some days I felt guilty being paid to fly them.
They may have built aeroplanes bigger and faster, but I seriously doubt whether they have built any "better". :) :) :)

gaunty

8th Sep 2000, 11:53

Weary
SNAP
A legend in its own lunchbox
The best fun was asking them to clear the B200's out of your way on departure. :)
And asking the B200s what the weather/wind was like down there.
Gross weight takeoff direct to F280-300 routinely. High speed/long range CRZ almost the same.
It was that beautiful big 52ft span plank and those fuel miserly Garretts @ 360 odd pph for 290KIAS. And if you had to, as Weary says, you could stay up till the very last moment, barber pole at flt idle or just enought to stop NTSing and boy could you come down quick. Pressurisation had no trouble handling it and it all came together by the time you got on the ground.
I also did a fair bit of maintenance test flying, with a cuppla hours fuel and no pax it was hard not to show off a little, the climb rate was awesome for a turboprop.
The fuel flexibility is amazing.
Perth to Coolangatta (2000+nm) non stop 6hrs 15m with fuel overhead Cooly for Sydney with holding. Wished my bladder had the same range.
Syd Perth non stop in not much longer.

Cyclone already crossing the coast north of Carnarvon, depart Perth with 6 POB to attempt drop off and rescue mining personell from East Gascoyne station. Not assured landing at dest (500nm) so need to carry return fuel from/to Perth and for the nearest available alternate for Perth which was Alice Springs. Not much sweat and almost a walk in the park.
As it turned out couldn't land, due strip already under water, did manage to get back into Perth and landed with Alice Springs fuel still on board.

Going up at FL330 the cylonic hump was clearly visible to the NW as usual fairly smooth until closer to the ground when it gets seriously bumpy.

Yup for 5-600nm radius, the performance was a hard act to beat even for the corporate jets.

They often had to depart simultaneously to the same destination as our Citation. It was often a close run thing and almost always required circuit area coordination between us and the Conquest on descent.

Did I like em you betcha.

LAVDUMPER

10th Sep 2000, 23:38

Guanty,

The King Air series seems to be universally praised - and deservingly so. I haven't talked to many King Air pilots who dislike the machine...

Has anyone here, besides me, had the opportunity to sit in (or fly) a Falcon 2000? Not only is this sleek-looking aircraft fun to look at on the ramp, but it is a technological marvel. The cockpit is both spacious (ergonomic like most French aircraft) and techno-advanced - big EFIS screens. The one I sat in today was equipped with a HUD - an awesome piece of equipment. I might have a new favourite aircraft - the Falcon 2000...

Anyone wish to concur or have additional reviews to offer?

Regards

------------------
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed pilot is king!

ozone ranger

11th Sep 2000, 01:04

First to mutt, congrats my man, told you in the chat room that you would have no problems. (I am con-pilot @ msn.com and ozone ranger @ aol)

I have just gotten back from London. Rode in Dassault's 900EX demo there and back. The 900EX is a fabulous airplane. When we left Wily Post airport (KPWA) in Oklahoma City non-stop to London the tempture was 114F/42C. The elevation at KPWA is 1,300ft but, and this is really important, the runway is only 7,000ft. long. The distance is 4,100nm, flight time was 8+47 and we landed with 1+45hrs fuel left. Climbed straight to FL370 and then to 410 an hour later and stayed there for the rest of the trip. Cruise was .78. By the way we had 8 paxs.

I know for a fact the G-IVSP could not make that trip at that high of temp. We had already done the same trip in a G-IVSP and it was runway limited at 90F. Maybe a G-V or a Global Express, I don't know. Of course the Dassualt demo crew said that no other airplane could do that trip from that airport at that temp. They were great guys by the way.

About the cockpit size of the 900 vs the G-IV. I am 6'5" tall and weigh 225lbs, so space in the cockpit is very important to me. After flying both airplanes the 900 has a lot more room for me, sorry G fans but that's the way I see it. Don't get me wrong, the G-IVSP is a great airplane, the 900EX is just better.

Anyway the stay in London was wonderful and people at Lyton Aviation at Luton were great.

gaunty

11th Sep 2000, 11:09

LAVDUMPER
Never said the King Air wasn't but overall the Conquest is a better performer.

ozone ranger

Fascinated by your comments, as a former purveyor of corporate chariots, the HARDEST part was always getting down to the devil in the detail, PAST the obvious further, higher, faster rhubarb in the brochure.

The acid test was as you described,
"how much could you carry and how far out if the hometown strip on say an ISA+15 day"
This really sorted the men from the boys in whether the fuselage/airframe were just tweaked and warmed over versions from an older certification or designed that way from scratch.
It's a classic WAT problem that comes with older technology airframes.

The second segment climb gets em every time.

Mid size class Jet "A" advertises better non stop, long range than rival Jet "B".
The reality, Jet "A" can only achieve it at long range CRZ circa 0.7M, Jet "B" does it at say 0.84M with fuel and leg stretch stop enroute and still arrives at the destination 30 minutes ahead of "A".
Total fuel burn, guess what, Jet "B" significantly less.
If you are only doing those sort of legs every now and then, then the odd extra fuel stop is a small price to pay for the savings overall.

Falcons?? (superbly built and designed aircraft) generally are pretty hard to beat in that dept and no I didn't work for them.
Falcon WAT performance? how many corporate jets can carry 6 pax around 1100nm out of around 1300m ISA+15. And then carry the same pax over 3,000nm on the next sector.
Gulfstream?? BIG IRON, still get that tightening around the crotch when I see one, but IMHO the old Rolls dictum applies "If you have to ask the price, then you probably can't afford one"

There's NO single answer but we always believed in selling to the 85% role. Recommending an airframe that would do 100% of 85% of the tasks and capable of the rest with the odd tech stop.

Horses for courses is the trick, but the devil is in the detail.

throber69

11th Sep 2000, 19:25

Challenger 604 all the way ( until we get a global that is )

LOVE AND KISSES THROBER 69

con-pilot

12th Sep 2000, 06:06

Hey, nothing wrong with the 604, but it can't do what the 900EX can do out of Aspen!

My boss lives in Aspen. I wished that the 900EX had the cockpit room that the 604 has, but then again the 604 can't do what the 900EX can do out of Aspen.

And I have to do what the boss needs.

Latte tester

12th Sep 2000, 17:58

Con-pilot, quite right, the slats make all the difference, I used to fly a Falcon 50 from a 5000ft strip at 3800msl @ 37C - used most of the runway, but still made it. Watch for the future rendition of the Challenger, if they make it, I wouldn't be suprised to see a slatted wing. Flight Deck roominess can make up for not having slats......Latte time

Max Torque

12th Sep 2000, 19:58

This is a fascinating thread – it is really interesting to here what people have to say, especially the G-IV – Falcon 900 comparison. Academic for me for the moment, unfortunately, but one of these days…..

I would like to praise and extol the virtues of the Beech 200 KingAir. I have almost 3000 hours on this critter, and I seriously suspect that when I eventually stop flying them, I will truly miss them. I know that the Conquest 2 is a hard match for the 200, gaunty and weary – never had it done to me, but it really is the only thing that can touch the 200, with the exception of the Herc, which is a slightly different proposition. However, I would like to make the entirely subjective proposition that the KingAir is a lot prettier than the Conquest 2; I think it is truly a harmonious aircraft to look at, with the big T-tail and all its well dimensioned curves.

The 200 handles beautifully; it is well constructed and has that same quality you sense when you slam the door of a Mercedes. It is reliable as a Swiss bank when properly maintained, and there is another thing I would prefer over the Conquest 2: give me a PT6-41/42 anytime over those hard pushed, sensitive Garretts. The controls are firm and well-balanced; flown precisely it has a very smooth ride – the electrical trim is rigged so that you can pre-empt the pitch changes during configuration. Providing the pax are strapped in, I often try to play the game of waking them up on touchdown. You set the power setting from top of descent, monitor the pressurization carefully, trim the pitch changes out, and check the pax on short final. The game is spoiled a bit in the older models with the noisy electrical gear motor under the floor behind the main spar. It is good fun.

You can also push the 200 hard if you have to – it has good shortfield performance, especially on landing. I have stopped in less than 250 meters (full stop, no wind), using a four-bladed version. I had a 1000 meters, but I was curious. During departure, you can do anything you want as long as you hold your speeds – control is precise and crisp. You can do amazing things with this plane (within reason), but the 200 is not docile in any way – if you do not fly her, she will fly you – and quickly. You can be very fast on approach, due to the high configuration speeds and all the metal turning around at idle power. With 4 blades, Vne (260 TAS) – 10 knots to 4 NM is possible (but not pax friendly). Very steep descents are the same – my rule of thumb for a steep descent is not “behind” 1NM per 1000’ altitude. I always get a kick out of ATC asking if we are comfortable. Again not very nice for the pax – unless they are into this kind of thing.

Bad things: What total dweeb thought up the flap-control system? Might have been the same guy who designed the fuel indication system.

I fly the Beech 1900 as well, and while it can do some of the things that its little sister can, it has much more inertia. The 200 is just light enough for you to get around inertia (sort of), but be prepared for a fight if you were really asleep at the wheel.
Now if I could just find a girl like that….whoops back to Jet Blast.

Y’all have a good one.