Comparison of KA 90 series airplanes Vs. MU 2 or others

Boris Badenov said:
Properly maintained (by people who specialize in them, not Mitch Mechanic in the corner hanger), MU-2s have excellent reliability. Anyone who thinks they're a "mess" probably hasn't flown one. Carrying three people, you don't need a sewertube or even a Merlin...you don't even need a longbody Mitsi. And the shortbodies are stupid fast...you're CERTAINLY going to notice the difference between a Solitaire and a KingAir 90, even over only 300 miles. One trues what, MAYBE 240? The Solitaire is around 315. If that's not enough, it'll cost about half as much and, considering the speed advantage, will burn about the same fuel per leg. You can stop it in 500ft and under 91 easily get out in 2000ft.

I will admit that from what I've seen so far, the Pilatus is a contender. It's not as fast as a Mitsi, especially down low, but field performance is even better, it carries more in a better cabin, and it burns less fuel. But A) Only one spinny thing and B) Cost of acquisition is extremely high.

If you buy a King Air, I'm going to kick you after I drink you under the table.

Then murder you in your sleep.
Click to expand...

If I were the only one making the decision, or if it was based purely on cost, speed and what I WANTED, it would be the Mitsu. Someone got on one of the people's ears and earnestly said that MU2's were deathtraps, etc. I explained that the guys 75 hours in a 172 20 years ago was not relevant but coupled with Google and this D-bags "expert commentary" I'm fighting an uphill battle. Add to that, some of these guys are not exactly Yeager on the "Am I afraid to fly" scale and the whole "OMG! MU 2's crash!" and it is a bit of a slog uphill. I'm fighting the good fight Boris - but I'm losing. Frankly, the fact that I'm not buying a Lodestar is a major buzzkill and as I've said, this is akin to a new tampon dispenser in the ladies room - a decision I have to clear, plan and pay for but not exciting.
 
You can't go wrong with a King Air of any variety.

I would avoid the Cheyenne because as much as I love Chieftain's, and would love them even more if they were pressurized with turboprops on them, I believe parts availability is an issue.

The Pilatus is an awesome aircraft, but actually probably MORE aircraft than you need for 4 total people.

The TBM is sweet, but a tiny bit expensive to buy into when compared to these other aircraft.

The MU2 has been talked to death.

The Merlin, single pilot, will only be recommended by current Metro drivers who think "it's not THAT hard to fly!"

Why not a Piper Meridian? It'll go 300 miles with 4 people easily. It would be the cheapest to operate, it's American made, and would fit the needs for what you're normally going to do with it.

Also, I would not discount single engine turbine aircraft because it "only" has one engine. The rate of PT6's failing is so astronomically low that you're probably more likely to vote democrat in the next election.
 
WacoFan said:
If I were the only one making the decision, or if it was based purely on cost, speed and what I WANTED, it would be the Mitsu. Someone got on one of the people's ears and earnestly said that MU2's were deathtraps, etc. I explained that the guys 75 hours in a 172 20 years ago was not relevant but coupled with Google and this D-bags "expert commentary" I'm fighting an uphill battle. Add to that, some of these guys are not exactly Yeager on the "Am I afraid to fly" scale and the whole "OMG! MU 2's crash!" and it is a bit of a slog uphill. I'm fighting the good fight Boris - but I'm losing. Frankly, the fact that I'm not buying a Lodestar is a major buzzkill and as I've said, this is akin to a new tampon dispenser in the ladies room - a decision I have to clear, plan and pay for but not exciting.
Click to expand...

Who is going to be flying this thing? A professional or some of your buddies?
 
Understood. In that case I'll go with KLB and vote for a Merlin. As I understand it it's around the same speed as a longbody mitsi with perhaps slightly more room inside. No idea on the field performance numbers, but just looking at it, I'd guess it's not exactly a Husky. That may not matter to you, though. At least it's still got REAL engines that they put in the RIGHT DIRECTION.
 
jtrain609 said:
Who is going to be flying this thing? A professional or some of your buddies?
Click to expand...

None of these guys fly. Shuttling doctors to rural hospitals is the mission. Pro will fly it if we do this. Single would be great but the Malibu's, TBM 700's (my personal choice for the single turbine) and Pilatypus are all close to a million bucks. You can get a clapped out 90 KA for cheaper. As with anything (except for cool airplanes)I'm looking at this from my lens of "cost containment" but I have to factor in the Dr's - comfort both physically and piece of mind.
 
Boris Badenov said:
PT6 is the only engine I've ever had fail on me in flight. What are the odds of THAT, do you reckon?
Click to expand...

Those odds are probably dependent on how bad of a MX program your company ran. Over the entire fleet of PT6's, I think the failure rate is 1 every 200,000 hours?
 
WacoFan said:
None of these guys fly. Shuttling doctors to rural hospitals is the mission. Pro will fly it if we do this. Single would be great but the Malibu's, TBM 700's (my personal choice for the single turbine) and Pilatypus are all close to a million bucks. You can get a clapped out 90 KA for cheaper. As with anything (except for cool airplanes)I'm looking at this from my lens of "cost containment" but I have to factor in the Dr's - comfort both physically and piece of mind.
Click to expand...

Solid.

Consider that with a clapped out King Air 90, you may get it cheaper up front, but you're going to pay for it in the end. Here's the first King Air 90 I clicked on over at ASO, it's listed for $795,000.

http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/ViewAd.aspx?id=133954&listingType=true&IsInternal=True&dealerid=

It's had one hot section done already, so in another 1,500ish hours you're going to need new engines, and that right there is going to cost you more than the initial acquisition of the airframe, of course assuming that they last that long.

Who knows if that matters to you guys.

But something else to consider is that if one of these folks thinks that the MU-2 is a death trap, then they're going to say the same thing about a single engine turboprop, and they're certainly going to say that about a Merlin being flown by a single pilot. A King Air, at a point, starts to become your only option.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Understood. In that case I'll go with KLB and vote for a Merlin. As I understand it it's around the same speed as a longbody mitsi with perhaps slightly more room inside. No idea on the field performance numbers, but just looking at it, I'd guess it's not exactly a Husky. That may not matter to you, though. At least it's still got REAL engines that they put in the RIGHT DIRECTION.
Click to expand...

You can get it to fly of just about anywhere with the alcohol water injection system.

hook_dupin said:
It also has about 2-3x the operations cost as a King Air...
Click to expand...

It depends on what kind of condition you buy it in. Plus the difference in fuel cost can make up for that!
 
3 at most plus pilot I would recommend a TBM 850. Cabin is smaller than anything else you are considering, but a used one is going to give you a good true of 305-310 at 55 GPH. Climb straight to 280 no problem, and it's pretty fun to fly. PM me if you need perf. #'s.
 
MikeOH58 said:
3 at most plus pilot I would recommend a TBM 850. Cabin is smaller than anything else you are considering, but a used one is going to give you a good true of 305-310 at 55 GPH. Climb straight to 280 no problem, and it's pretty fun to fly. PM me if you need perf. #'s.
Click to expand...

I'd love the TBM. Acquisition cost is much, much higher.

As for Jtrains excellent post - I hear you on this. This is a HIGHLY speculative business venture (not the airplane - that's just one component of this - a rather small part of the puzzle). This idea and business model will either "fly" so to speak...or it will crash and burn (so to speak). Nobody's really tried what we're doing as a business model - it involves delivering cutting edge surgical procedures rural hospitals that don't have access to this kind of expertise or equipment. Part of the reason I equate this to buying tampons on the excitement scale is that it is one very little cog of a much bigger overall plan we are trying to do - and is kind of the least important component in some ways. Aside from the airplane I'll be spending about a million five over the next month or two on equipment, trucks, mobile surgical suites/cleanrooms, etc. I just need something that will shuttle surgeons between KC and the various Hootervilles we'll be going to. The idea that the cheaper plane may cost more in the long-run is well taken - I guess I'd retort that in 1,500 hours of time this business will either be buying a KA 300 or we will eat the $2m or so start up costs and go down the road having tried and failed. Even a timed out KA has some kind of intrinsic value I would think so we could sell it then (for whatever we could get) and upgrade. These doctors (because they're doctors) have been conditioned to think "King Airs are good". Seriously, I'm not sure how that works, but people who know NOTHING about aviation like these doctors know about KA's. I'd rather go with something interesting (MU2, Merlin, Lodestar, DC3) but this really is as close to a "disposable" airplane purchase as I can imagine.
 
If you think the business model is risky, why not lease a KA to start? That way, you can prove out the business without having to sink $1.5M into what is essentially one more capital cost. After a couple of years, you can then look to buy merely as a means to make the operation more cost-effective.
 
As a pile on, when the aircraft goes down for MX, you can put your energy into finding another lease partner quickly vice figuring out how to get your docs to BFE while negotiating for parts/hanger time.
 
Well, at least they seem to agree that they'd all be comfortable with riding in a King Air. I guess if you wanted one that is kind of unique you could look in to a 331 powered King Air B100. Without doing a comparison between it and the other models I don't know how the costs and performance numbers work out, but it looks to have a bit more elbow room than the 90.
 
Beep said:
Well, at least they seem to agree that they'd all be comfortable with riding in a King Air. I guess if you wanted one that is kind of unique you could look in to a 331 powered King Air B100. Without doing a comparison between it and the other models I don't know how the costs and performance numbers work out, but it looks to have a bit more elbow room than the 90.
Click to expand...

first post... welcome
 
Beep said:
Well, at least they seem to agree that they'd all be comfortable with riding in a King Air. I guess if you wanted one that is kind of unique you could look in to a 331 powered King Air B100. Without doing a comparison between it and the other models I don't know how the costs and performance numbers work out, but it looks to have a bit more elbow room than the 90.
Click to expand...

Those Garrett 100's are bad johnnys. Definitely something to take a look at. I couldn't tell you the numbers but the Garretts OC is less than a PT6 on a KA type airframe.
 
Flew a B100 for a few years. Faster than a Cheyenne II, burns less fuel. Ripples in the coffee.
 
BTpilot said:
Those Garrett 100's are bad johnnys. Definitely something to take a look at. I couldn't tell you the numbers but the Garretts OC is less than a PT6 on a KA type airframe.
Click to expand...

So the MU-2 is a mess AND any Garretts in general are bad? Are you trying to get Boris to challenge you to a fight to the death or something? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top