King 200 vs. King 350


#1

I am looking to buy a new plane for corporate use, and would like to get some feedback if possible. I have searched through the threads and couldn’t find anything relavent.

Here is our typical mission:

5-8 people with myself and a co-pilot included. (3-5 in back).

300-500 nm

Mostly in and out of smaller regional airports throught WV, KY, AL, TN, PA. (lots of mountains)

Looking for speed, seats, and reliability…however don’t want to go overboard on cost to operate.

I have a Diamond Twinstar for use when it is just myself and someone else. The new aircraft would be strictly for business use.

I would most likely do a leaseback to help offset some of the fixed costs.

I am looking at buying new, or very lightly used.

Looking for something in the next 6 months.

My front runner is the King Air 200. However, I don’t know much about the 350 other than it is a bit bigger. I have flown the PC-12, but don’t like the idea of a single fire breather as I come in over the mountains in fog. I like the Phenom 100, but that is a ways down the road for availability, and doesn’t have the short field capabilities of the 200.

I think that about covers it. I know someone is going to jump on here and say for me to hire a consultant…yada yada…I like free advice. :slight_smile:

So, what say you all? 200? 350? Something else? Why?

Thanks All!!!

John


#2

As many would expect, I’d say go with the PC12. That mission description fits the PC12 better than any of the other planes you listed.
Speed - Yup same or better than B200
Seats - 6 pax in corporate config, 8 max
Reliability - Excellent
Cost to operate is, as expected, lower than any of the other planes you listed.

Get over it.

No jet is going to have the short field capabilities of the B200.

My first choice would be the PC12; second, the B200. The 350 is more room than you need, although it is faster than either the Pilatus or the 200.


#3

:smiley: How did I know you would feel that way?

I have to admit the PC12 is a sweet ride. We have been using a 2004 model and I really enjoy flying it. Although I haven’t had the luxury of riding in the back yet, it seems to be very nice. It was just when I punched out of the clouds 1,000 AGL and was in mountains I start looking at that engine in a whole different light. :open_mouth: If I were doing Midwest flying mainly, I think the PC12 would by far be my first choice.

Thanks for the input. I truly appreciate it!!!

John


#4

But when you’re high and heavy out in the coalfields, that second engine on the 200 or 350 ain’t gonna’ do bupkus for you!

Think about it, that second engine DOUBLES the odds of experiencing an engine failure, not halves it.

The PT6 in its various iterations is easily the most reliable engine that’s ever flown.


#5

Somebody knows what industry would cause me to be doing these flights!!

I have to discount your opinion by 25% due to relation to a PC12 driver. :stuck_out_tongue:

Thanks!!!

John


#6

John, Check the NTSB reports. It looks to me like the Pilatus has experienced at least 2 engine failures in the last five years resulting in accidents. (there may have been more failures that didn’t result in accidents) The King Air 200 has had ZERO accidents that have been because of an engine failure, and only one accident in the last five years. Just something to mull over when you’re making a decision.
Dan


#7

Given the description of your mission “Mostly in and out of smaller regional airports throught WV, KY, AL, TN, PA. (lots of mountains)” there weren’t a lot of choices.

I just went with the industry that used to make me drive throughout that same region walking the pits and shafts to inspect machinery and operations for safety.

As much as I would argue otherwise, that seems fair! :wink:


#8

dont forget to look at the Piagio P180 (if you are in the market for a new king air)

its got better range then a king air, better climb rate, better reverse thrust, and faster cruise speed. Not to mention its interior also much nicer then any King Air 350 you can ever buy. If you are in the market to buy one, god bless you. However there is other options, mainly “fractional ownership”. There is a very very good company called Avantair that might be perfect for you

avantair.com/

-Photos-

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/piaggio/images/1-private-jet.jpg

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/piaggio/images/5-private-jet.jpg


#9

Last weekend when CFIJames and I were at his older sister’s for dinner one of those flew over the house on its approach to MMU.

Boy, are those things LOUD!

J and his wife both knew what it was long before we caught a glimpse of it, very distinctive sound.

And yep, they look like a flying catfish!


#10

Not really.


#11

I think the catfish is about $2 million more than the King Air. My initially talks show the 200 at about $5m and the 250 at about $6. I think the Piaggio is closer to $8. Once we get up to those figures my rear circular muscle starts to clinch a little too tight.


#12

A DC Plug and a sledgehammer will take care of that problem! :wink:

The PC-12 should be looking a lot more attractive at $3mill and about 60% of the operating cost for a 200 or 350.

planesense.aero/pdfs/ps_whysingle.pdf

Full disclosure: I don’t work for PlaneSense, however J does.


#13

For my business I would buy an old King Air 200 in the $1million dollar range and redo the soft goods (interior). Then the costs are fairly predictable and if I have to do an overhaul at $125k per engine that is still alot less than $4.5mil price tag of a new one. It’s also a lot less and more powerful than the Pilatus*. Most new and old 200’s charter for the same rate. Alot of pilots can fly the 200 while the 350 requires a type rating.

*With the $2mil savings over the Pilatus you can fly the old King Air free for 20 years (assuming $100k per year ownership cost excluding airframe). As a side benefit, you can laugh at the Pilatus as you pass them during climb.


#14

Most new and old 200’s charter for the same rate. Alot of pilots can fly the 200 while the 350 requires a type rating.

Thanks for the information. This was what I was looking for…more hard facts than just opinion. (Although the opinions are great as well).

A DC Plug and a sledgehammer will take care of that problem!

Or I could just p*** my wife off and wait for the normal gluteal mandibulation.

:slight_smile:


#15

I would go with the 200. Not really because of the twin vs. single.

I think you would end up without enough range with 8 on board in the Piaggio. Love the design, but it’s weak spot is range.

Pilatus is an incredible design, but you said this was for business. You didn’t say anything that would make you need the PC-12. A charter carrier I am familiar with found the 200 had lower cost of operation and better dispatch than the PC 12 after using several of both in the same fleet for some time. The reason is that the excellent bird is not backed up with excellent service. All too often parts have to come from Europe or even go back to Europe for repair. Also, parts costs are out of line. So, the better design is not the better product after all.

The 200 is a commodity bird that is usually easy to sell, and there are more likely leaseback opportunities. You may find that the leaseback does not really pay though. Tread very carefully here. Look at the situation of the charter and his incentives to use your plane vs. others. Also, remember that if you bump a customer, you lose business, but if you do not bump him, you lose use of your plane.


#16

Have you considered an MU-2?

Pretty fast (300 knots), MUCH cheaper (we’re talking about 500-600k for a solitaire or 700k for a Marquise), but of course they stopped making them in 1983, so no new ones around.

And to those who are getting ready to make snarky remarks about its safety record, fly it, and I can tell you from experience you’ll wish you’d never made those snarky remarks, as long as you realize you need to fly the airplane like a jet, rather than a traditional turboprop twin: get trained, stay current, and the airplane will serve you extremely well.

I fly one in Switzerland fairly frequently. Definitely a good airplane for short fields with steep approaches and climbouts, even at full or nearly full takeoff weights.


#17

I know I’m a little late, but thought I’d put in my 2 cents worth. For the type of flying you’re doing, the King Air is definately the smart decision. I have over 3000 hours in the 200 and 350, as well as several thousand in corporate jets, and the KA200 and 350 are the most flexible aircraft out there.
The 350 is a truck. You can put 7 or 8 people and light bags and still put in 4 or 5 hours fuel. It climbs quite well OEI even when heavy, certainly well enough to keep you alive! The one drawback is that you have to calculate Vspeeds and adhere to a TOFL. Still, the numbers are good and you can trade fuel for runway performance.
The 200 is very good too, just a little limited if you need to carry 6 or 7 folks in the back and go a long way. The benefit is that you aren’t constrained by balanced field length and Vspeeds, something that might make the difference, depending on your missions.
Both are very comfortable to fly, and when you’re getting you butt handed to you in the soup over the “cumulo-granite”, there’s nothing as reassuring as a nice hefty KingAir to get you home. Hope this helps.


#18

come over to caldwell those bad boys are in and out all day… heck yea there loud on approach!! lol,

not to hijack this thread but can you believe that they could land on rwy 22 and exit at taxiway bravo at KCDW because of their great reverse thrust. No other airplane I have seen can land like that, PC-12, Citation CJ1, King Air 350… nothing

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/95/cdwnv1.png

bravo is intersection near the first set of T-Hangers its only about 1/3 of the runway :open_mouth:


#19

That’s around 1,800’ and it books out at 2,800’. Empty plane, head wind, aborted take off or damaged approach lights?


#20

We could totally do that in the PC12. No problem.
Check out MHT’s runway 24. I just landed last night and made it off by Taxiway Hotel without even hitting the brakes hard.