Twin Turboprop Aircraft - King Air and......?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twin Turboprop Aircraft - King Air and......?
Easy question.
Looking for twin turboprop aircraft that are comparable to the King Air (~10 seats), and are suitable for initial turbine training.
Billa
Looking for twin turboprop aircraft that are comparable to the King Air (~10 seats), and are suitable for initial turbine training.
Billa
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do your turbine rating stuff in a single like a caravan or cresco or 750xl. It'll save you cash and you can do twin stuff in a stinky old baron or seneca. Some of the parachuting ops offer turbine time in their machines. Why do you want it? If it's to get you a job I reckon twin IFR time is more important than turbine time. more details?
From personal experience I can assure you that turbine endorsement is a complete waste of time. Get 500 multi in a piston twin then you'll pick up a real turbine job no worries. Single Engine turbine is a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME.
I have never heard of a turbine endorsement but I would have thought the most appropriate aircraft to do turbine training in is whatever aircraft you have just been employed to fly.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question was 'comparable to a King Air'
I say again - there are none
I say again - there are none
the most appropriate aircraft to do turbine training in is whatever aircraft you have just been employed to fly.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOBODY
I agree that the best is the one you're going to fly....
I agree that getting 500hrs multi IF is the best way to get onto a turbine, thats why I said " I reckon twin IFR time is more important than turbine time". but I disagree with your statement that single engine turbine time is a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME. (from personal experience of course). It helped me in the interview for my first airline job, the panel asked me a lot of questions about technical stuff with regard operating turbo props, I understood it instead of having to rote learn it or not having an answer at all. It's just another experience, not one that I would put above twin ifr time but still a bonus. If you have the twin time or are below 1000hrs total time I think it is great fun and good experience.
c ya
I agree that the best is the one you're going to fly....
I agree that getting 500hrs multi IF is the best way to get onto a turbine, thats why I said " I reckon twin IFR time is more important than turbine time". but I disagree with your statement that single engine turbine time is a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME. (from personal experience of course). It helped me in the interview for my first airline job, the panel asked me a lot of questions about technical stuff with regard operating turbo props, I understood it instead of having to rote learn it or not having an answer at all. It's just another experience, not one that I would put above twin ifr time but still a bonus. If you have the twin time or are below 1000hrs total time I think it is great fun and good experience.
c ya
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Pacific Ocean
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
