Runwy Performance Phenom 300 Vs Kingair 350
Thread Starter
Runwy Performance Phenom 300 Vs Kingair 350
Both aircraft acording to their manufacturers data have impressive runway numbers. Looking at the advertising runway performance show both have a landing ground roll of around 600-700m. Ther's also numerous Youtube videos of both aircraft landing in 700m.
Is this representative of the real world.Can it be true that a light jet has a similar landing roll of a turbo prop, or is the impressive short field landings in the jet more from an ideal set of conditions that's not easily repeatable where as the Kingair can do it day in day out. Is it no longer true that turbo props (Kingair 350) need less runway than light jets. For simplicity I'm ignoring regulatory runway factored distances.
Is this representative of the real world.Can it be true that a light jet has a similar landing roll of a turbo prop, or is the impressive short field landings in the jet more from an ideal set of conditions that's not easily repeatable where as the Kingair can do it day in day out. Is it no longer true that turbo props (Kingair 350) need less runway than light jets. For simplicity I'm ignoring regulatory runway factored distances.
Don't forget the PC-24.
https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/dat...-Factsheet.pdf
https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/dat...-Factsheet.pdf
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both aircraft acording to their manufacturers data have impressive runway numbers. Looking at the advertising runway performance show both have a landing ground roll of around 600-700m. Ther's also numerous Youtube videos of both aircraft landing in 700m.
Is this representative of the real world.Can it be true that a light jet has a similar landing roll of a turbo prop, or is the impressive short field landings in the jet more from an ideal set of conditions that's not easily repeatable where as the Kingair can do it day in day out. Is it no longer true that turbo props (Kingair 350) need less runway than light jets. For simplicity I'm ignoring regulatory runway factored distances.
Is this representative of the real world.Can it be true that a light jet has a similar landing roll of a turbo prop, or is the impressive short field landings in the jet more from an ideal set of conditions that's not easily repeatable where as the Kingair can do it day in day out. Is it no longer true that turbo props (Kingair 350) need less runway than light jets. For simplicity I'm ignoring regulatory runway factored distances.
The CJ4 also have some great runway performances. In this video, you can see a 450m take off roll.
Looks like in the first video they approached the runway well below the prescribed glidepath shown by the 3.5 degree APAPI (2 red lights) AND they landed before the displaced threshold. Oh yeah.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Donīt be so picky EMS.
BTW Guptar I have personally been on board a KA 350 at "midweight" brought to a complete stop with about 380m. Not nice tear & wear wise (tires, brakes, props), but doable.
BTW Guptar I have personally been on board a KA 350 at "midweight" brought to a complete stop with about 380m. Not nice tear & wear wise (tires, brakes, props), but doable.
