Turboprop comparison
- Thread starter Rotor2Wing
- Start date
Boskru
Well-Known Member
N519AT. I have been flying the C-12 and its a great plane. We do operate ours at the higher than 12,500 so we're able to take fuel and cargo/pax. I do enjoy the "dropping rock" as it allows for the tactical approach without having to bother ATC for lower altitudes (plus it makes for more fun approaches) We also have the high float tires so landings are easier! I've not flown the KA350 but would love to. It seems like a great plane! I REALLY want to fly the KA300 (200 w/ 350 engines). I've been told its a rocket ship!!
I did the Dash8 type in July but haven't flown the plane yet. I will be flying the -300 for the most part but there is the potential to fly the -100 or -200. I think the -300 will be better with the larger engines and dual AC packs. I will admit though that at least for the first dozen flights or so I will be paranoid about touching the tail during the flare. Six degrees doesn't allow for much of a flare.
I did the Dash8 type in July but haven't flown the plane yet. I will be flying the -300 for the most part but there is the potential to fly the -100 or -200. I think the -300 will be better with the larger engines and dual AC packs. I will admit though that at least for the first dozen flights or so I will be paranoid about touching the tail during the flare. Six degrees doesn't allow for much of a flare.
N519AT
Ahh! This is how I change this!
Yeah, the KA200 will drop like an absolute rock if you want it to. I much rather prefer the landing characteristics of the KA350 than the 200. In the 350, you can fly it at ref+40 (or 20..can't remember, it's been a while), chop the power to flight idle at 200 ft, be at ref over the numbers and get a nice landing out of it almost every time. The 200 (for me) is much more complicated, especially after getting used to the heavier controls of the Dash. Pretty humbling.
I've heard nothing but great things about the 300, as long as it's a 300 and not the 300LW. The 300LW was limited to 12,500 to prevent the PIC from needing a type and to allow it to fly in Europe. This is an airplane that was certified to 14,000 lbs mtow and limited to 12,500 by a piece of paper.
The Dash 8-300 is nicer for the dual a/c packs, the APU (when it works) and the better consistency in the landings. It just flies better overall too. The engines, while more powerful don't give you the same overpowered feeling that you get in the 200. Kind of the opposite, really.
I know of an airline that had a couple of tail strikes in a 300 this year, so it can definitely happen. One technique that I've heard of is landing with a little bit of power on. Supposedly this reduces the pitch needed in the flare and gives you touchdowns at right around 3 degrees nose up. Makes for smoother touchdowns too.
The 300 when it's heavy can be somewhat troublesome to go down and slow down at the same time, but nothing a little condition lever action won't fix.
Do you fly for a DoD contractor?
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
Favorite Tprop: KA200. The one I flew was a mid-90's, so with the weights, it was 2 pilots, 6? pax for 1100 miles or take them out of a short strip.
Least favorite, and the least time: BAe3100. Jetstream. Part 23 airplane that had a special FAR written for it for takeoff performance. On the upside, it flew like a Frasca sim and was underpowered.
Least favorite, and the least time: BAe3100. Jetstream. Part 23 airplane that had a special FAR written for it for takeoff performance. On the upside, it flew like a Frasca sim and was underpowered.
Tommay85
Well-Known Member
Only flown the 99. My typical conversation with the plane: "Will you hold altitude for 5 god damn seconds so I can write something down!? DAMMIT!" 
I appreciate the man-handling ability in the roll axis though. I haven't noticed anything particularly hard about getting a soft landing out of the thing however. Absolute greasers are hard, yes, but *BANG* landings, I haven't noticed this being an issue. I don't give a damn about short landing contests, so I just don't use the brakes.
Riden in a MU-2. Looks fun!
Metros are my ultimate crush. If I ever fly one, It's gonna be a *never meet your heros* thing I imagine. It's reputation(probably undeserved, like the MU-2), ugliness and absurd noise are great!
I appreciate the man-handling ability in the roll axis though. I haven't noticed anything particularly hard about getting a soft landing out of the thing however. Absolute greasers are hard, yes, but *BANG* landings, I haven't noticed this being an issue. I don't give a damn about short landing contests, so I just don't use the brakes.Riden in a MU-2. Looks fun!
Metros are my ultimate crush. If I ever fly one, It's gonna be a *never meet your heros* thing I imagine. It's reputation(probably undeserved, like the MU-2), ugliness and absurd noise are great!
jergar999
Yoke Pumper!
Anyone who would rather be in a King Air 90 (other than a C90GT) or 100 than a PC12 hasn't flown both. 200 or higher changes that for me.
The 100 and 99 share a common wing, you could even drag a 99 wing out of the desert and put it on a 100 if you found major spar cracks following a wing bolt inspection. Neither of those airframes have a trim wheel either. I spent nine years in an A100 series King Air, now we call it the PAD (Pilatus Appreciation Device).
Boris, if you look across the river to spirit the backup they're in right now has the left wing off a 99.
I've flown King Airs, Metros, Commanders, Conquests and the PC12 , even spent a few hours in the right seat of a Solitaire and I think they all have their good points. I enjoy the PC12 but the Commander is what I miss most.
The 100 and 99 share a common wing, you could even drag a 99 wing out of the desert and put it on a 100 if you found major spar cracks following a wing bolt inspection. Neither of those airframes have a trim wheel either. I spent nine years in an A100 series King Air, now we call it the PAD (Pilatus Appreciation Device).
Boris, if you look across the river to spirit the backup they're in right now has the left wing off a 99.
I've flown King Airs, Metros, Commanders, Conquests and the PC12 , even spent a few hours in the right seat of a Solitaire and I think they all have their good points. I enjoy the PC12 but the Commander is what I miss most.
WestIndian425
Well-Known Member
Patrick
Well-Known Member
1) Turbo Commander. Ugly as all hell, but wow do they fly like a dream. Beautifully balanced controls and very responsive. With the Garretts, instant response and plenty of noise 
With -10 Garretts, seriously fast too.
2) King Air 200. Never flown a 99, and not really a fan of the C90's (the 90GT and 90GTi are different stories), but the 200's are great. Not especially fast, not especially efficient, but fly pretty damn nice. I would love to fly a 350 or 300 (even more so) one of these days.
3) Metro II/ III. Despite being older than dirt, where most have been abused beyond belief, the Metro II's are actually pretty fun. Now, the III's leave a lot to be desired. Because of the ridiculous inboard ailerons (and no spoilers or anything to help), roll control is a joke. I absolutely love the Garretts, but the III's (especially the "heavy" III's- 16,000 MTOW instead of 14,500) are quite underpowered. There is something very satisfying about flying them, however, the fact that they are just so damn unstable (without an autopilot, you think you've got it all trimmed perfectly, you take your hands off to write something down for a few seconds, look up, and find yourself in a 20 degree roll, 5 degrees nose down) makes them really tedious to hand fly on long legs. You will, however, always get the "Metro salute" of seeing everyone on the ground cover their ears as you taxi in
One of these days, I really do want to spend some time in an MU-2.
With -10 Garretts, seriously fast too. 2) King Air 200. Never flown a 99, and not really a fan of the C90's (the 90GT and 90GTi are different stories), but the 200's are great. Not especially fast, not especially efficient, but fly pretty damn nice. I would love to fly a 350 or 300 (even more so) one of these days.
3) Metro II/ III. Despite being older than dirt, where most have been abused beyond belief, the Metro II's are actually pretty fun. Now, the III's leave a lot to be desired. Because of the ridiculous inboard ailerons (and no spoilers or anything to help), roll control is a joke. I absolutely love the Garretts, but the III's (especially the "heavy" III's- 16,000 MTOW instead of 14,500) are quite underpowered. There is something very satisfying about flying them, however, the fact that they are just so damn unstable (without an autopilot, you think you've got it all trimmed perfectly, you take your hands off to write something down for a few seconds, look up, and find yourself in a 20 degree roll, 5 degrees nose down) makes them really tedious to hand fly on long legs. You will, however, always get the "Metro salute" of seeing everyone on the ground cover their ears as you taxi in
One of these days, I really do want to spend some time in an MU-2.
Capt. Chaos
Well-Known Member
No.. they operate on the Wing of Alaska 135 certificate.
sr22driver
what had happened was...
I'm flying a B200 with the Blackhawk -52s and the full Raisbeck package.
We just got the hawks and they made a huge difference in climb rates but only gave us about 20 kts in cruise.
She's big enough to be respectable on the ramp and small enough that hand flying is still enjoyable.
Sent from another hotel.
We just got the hawks and they made a huge difference in climb rates but only gave us about 20 kts in cruise.
She's big enough to be respectable on the ramp and small enough that hand flying is still enjoyable.
Sent from another hotel.
TFaudree_ERAU
Mashin' dem buttons
Size really doesn't matter (damn, where have I heard that before?)
The Challenger is a 45,000 lb airplane and is an absolute pleasure to hand fly.
sr22driver
what had happened was...
I have no other time except piston singles and about 20 hours in a Seminole.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Boris Badenov
This is no laughing matter.
Wait, you're saying an RJ is fun to fly?
Patrick
Well-Known Member
Would LOVE to fly one of these!
FlyingScot
Spanish Proficient
Beechcraft are designed by geniuses to be flown by idiots.
Swearingen/Fairchild are designed by idiots to be flown by geniuses.
Swearingen/Fairchild are designed by idiots to be flown by geniuses.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
The Saab is underpowered and over engineered. Is it stable? Yes, anything that lumbering is. The best thing that could ever happen to a Saab is if a 1900 towed it.
1900 is faster, simpler, trims out better, more power/weight, outclimbs, flies better with ice, and unlike the "saab story" it can actually carry 100% of the people and 100% of the bags even with an alternate.
1900, twice the pilot, half the pay (at least at Colgan).
scooter2525
Very well Member
I finally just figured out what your avatar is.
