King Air 200 vs CJ2 vs AVANTI II


#1

Hello!
First time post so please be nice to me. :wink:
My current business is considering to purchase an aircraft in the 6-8 seat category (either new, or ever so slightly used). Typical mission will be 500nm 4 pax, but we may do 800nm and up to 6-7 pax.

The first thing that comes to mind is the King Air. Rock solid and well proven, but slower than the two others.

The CJ2 may also be a safe bet and jets are so much easier to sell to the public (we plan to run it as a charter in the time it doesn’t fly for the company). But the rising fuel costs might be a worry.

The Piaggo is probably the best of both worlds. 400kts cruise and low fuel burn. But how is reliability? How is parts availability and most importantly, what do the passengers think of the plane?

I know the King air is a good short field performer, but what about the others? Runways as short as 2800 feet just above sea level (scandinavia) might be visited a couple of times.

If anyone has any experience with these aircraft any info would be appreciated as I can pass it on to my boss.

Thanks!


#2

Based on your runway requirements, the King Air is your only option. Jets usually need about 5000 feet to be safe and the Piaggio is list 2850 as its best takeoff distance (and that’s under perfect conditions with a test pilot).

Mike


#3

Cessna’s website lists these numbers for the CJ2+
Takeoff distance (SL, ISA, MTOW) 3,360 ft (1,024 m)
Landing distance (SL, ISA, MLW) 2,980 ft (908 m)


#4

You seem to be in that area where the three aircraft you list would all work. The occasional 2800 ft. runway might, stress might, require an extra fuel stop but if it is only occasional I wouldn’t worry about it. There will always be that type of trip no matter which aircraft you choose.

I’ve flown several jets in and out of runways in the 3000 ft. area. No problem as long as you follow the numbers.

Be careful comparing runway lengths, the King Air and Piaggio are certified to part 23 while the Citation is part 25. The turboprop websites are showing you a normal takeoff with two engines climbing to 50 ft., while the Citation is balanced field length*.

It’s been a while since I flew the King Air but if you calculate accelerate stop and accelerate go distances you will find it is up around 5000 feet for both. (at max takeoff weight). You are perfectly legal using the part 23 numbers but don’t have the same safety margin. I don’t know about the Avanti in this case.

  • In plain English BFL is where you accelerate to V1 then either abort the takeoff or, with one engine failing at V1, continue to accelerate, rotate at Vr and climb to 35 ft. while still over the runway. The accelerate go and accelerate stop distances are equal, or balanced, hence the name Balanced Field Length.

My opinion: Be careful calculating whether chartering the aircraft is worth it or not. Most information you read from charter or management companies does not tell you about real depreciation, that is the extra hours your airplane will have on it when you sell it. Insurance is about double, crew training is every six months instead of every year, more maintenance due to more flying. etc.

Just curious, where will the aircraft be based?

John in Saudi


#5

And looky here… June 2008 Flying just arrived in the mailbox with a B200GT on the cover. According to the spec box at the end of the article, Beech lists the takeoff runway at 2579’, max weight.


#6

If you’re looking at the CJ2 or Avanti, you’re in the $6.5 million range. You’d be better off with a Kingair 350. 9 pax , haul everything you’ve got, can fill the seats and the tanks. Commuter category. Incredibly flexible airplane. The Piaggio is a rocket, big cabin, but odd layout. Again, great full fuel payload. Have heard that ground handling can be kinda squirley, but maybe CFIJames will chime in on that. Kingair and Avanti offer great flexibility in the ability to carry less than full fuel and still have great range. Trip times on a 400nm leg will be within 10 minutes of one another on any of these planes.


#7

Excellent post by PorterJet. As usual. Guess that’s why he makes the big money and flies the big plane.


#8

I’ve flown the B200 & CJ’s. IMOH the CJ may not always be able to go where the King Air can but will be liked better by passengers. I flew for 2 companies with T-props-(Conquest & B200) & Citations eventually the T-props are parked and sold even if they fit the mission better than the Jet. Pax don’t like being in WX at lower FL’s going slow… thats why the Piaggio deserves a look.


#9

My brief 2 cents having operated both the B200 and the CJ2.

The CJ2 is a great airplane for the type of stage lengths described, and DOC’s will be comparable to the B200 if you can get it up high where the fuel burn is very low for a jet. But, you’ll not comfortably make runway numbers (the shorter ones mentioned) under wet/contaminated conditions. While the CJ series airplanes are certificated under FAR Part 23 Normal Category, Part 25 takeoff and landing performance criteria must be adhered to. The KA 350 falls under the same criteria.

The Avanti is a great balance of comfort, speed and efficiency, but has relatively high runway requirements and ref speeds… Again, maybe not providing a comfortable margin on shorter runways.

PM me if you’d like some specific perf #'s and I’ll dig out some manuals.


#10

Whats the saying, "One out of two…"
Thanks, this forum has me thinking about stuff long ago buried in the cobwebs of my mind.