99 replacement aircraft?

[Douglas]

Obviously the replacement of the 99 is a long way off, but me and a guy were talking about it and we kind of came up with "...uhhh".

Any opinions or thoughts?

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

Fly them till you die.

I think most people would trade their 99s for Caravans if they could. By the time AMF's 99s start to literally fall apart there will be some kind of caravan replacement entering market (although Caravans will persist forever past that.)

If you absolutely have to have the 30kt increase in cruising speed on the Caravan that the 99 has now, then you could buy a Caravan with a timed out PT6 and plop a Honeywell/Garret engine on there.

 

[Maurus]

Old stripped King Air 200s?

 

[jtrain609]

Fly them till you die.

I think most people would trade their 99s for Caravans if they could. By the time AMF's 99s start to literally fall apart there will be some kind of caravan replacement entering market (although Caravans will persist forever past that.)

If you absolutely have to have the 30kt increase in cruising speed on the Caravan that the 99 has now, then you could buy a Caravan with a timed out PT6 and plop a Honeywell/Garret engine on there.

Amflight won't operate Caravans (again) because in the words of the president of the company, "they're a death trap in ice."

They used to have them, but GR is uninterested in them.

 

[tiredcfi]

Old stripped King Air 200s?

How does the pilot get up front?

 

[Cal Goat]

PC-12? I'm too lazy to google the stats right now, but I'm guessing the 99 can carry slightly more volume and weight. Acquisition costs probably don't make sense for AMF and I'm sure they have no interest in a pressurized airplane for that task, but if Caravans are black-listed, I can't think of a better option that comes with its own factory barn door.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

Amflight won't operate Caravans (again) because in the words of the president of the company, "they're a death trap in ice."

They used to have them, but GR is uninterested in them.

Caravan with TKS is better in ice than a 1900 IMHO.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

 

[Douglas]

Beechcraft goes to big cargo and secures a total of 300 orders for the 99D. Production starts up again.

haha

Anything but the van.

 

[KLB]

I'm pretty sure I've seen Bemidji fly cargo in King Airs in and out of MSP for UPS.

 

[Boris Badenov]

I'd imagine someone could come up with a pilot hatch STC for the KA200...they did it for the mitsi. As for the replacement aircraft, the PC-12 fits the numbers pretty well. I think maybe slightly less load, but a fair bit more speed, at least on longer legs, plus significantly less fuel burn and engine reserve. Now, whether they're economical to PURCHASE is a different question, but maybe in 10 years...

Of course you could solve all of this right now and buy a fleet of well broken in MU-2s for peanuts, but I'd imagine if the bossman thinks the Caravan is danger-city, that idea is pretty much a non-starter...

One thing's for certain. The sooner that flying batch of cobbled-together King-Air castoffs stops flying, the better for all!

 

[SIUav8er]

I think the 99 is a damn near perfect short range cargo plane. You can hardly buy one today since they are in such high demand. They make money for the operator. Honestly, I dont see a replacement for the 99. The Caravan is close, but I am not sure that a Van can carry the weight, not to mention the questionable icing characteristics.

Not sure what you mean Boris, how do you say its not a great aircraft? Its simple, cheap to operate, and EASY to fly. What more do you want as cargo feeder? Sure, its nothing special to fly as a pilot, but on the business side it makes a lot of sense to run 99's!

 

[Boris Badenov]

Not sure what you mean Boris, how do you say its not a great aircraft? Its simple, cheap to operate, and EASY to fly. What more do you want as cargo feeder? Sure, its nothing special to fly as a pilot, but on the business side it makes a lot of sense to run 99's!

1) In order to be a GREAT aircraft, it would (in my view) need to be pleasant to fly
2) I didn't say it wasn't an aircraft which makes money/is economically viable. I just said I LOATHE it. Primarily (but not entirely) because of the LUDICROUS trim system.

 

[SIUav8er]

Its not horrible to fly!!! not sure why I am defending the 99 here, but I am curious as to what its major problem is, in your opinion.

 

[Cal Goat]

1) In order to be a GREAT aircraft, it would (in my view) need to be pleasant to fly
2) I didn't say it wasn't an aircraft which makes money/is economically viable. I just said I LOATHE it. Primarily (but not entirely) because of the LUDICROUS trim system.

3) it ain't pretty.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

I'd imagine someone could come up with a pilot hatch STC for the KA200...they did it for the mitsi. As for the replacement aircraft, the PC-12 fits the numbers pretty well. I think maybe slightly less load, but a fair bit more speed, at least on longer legs, plus significantly less fuel burn and engine reserve. Now, whether they're economical to PURCHASE is a different question, but maybe in 10 years...

Of course you could solve all of this right now and buy a fleet of well broken in MU-2s for peanuts, but I'd imagine if the bossman thinks the Caravan is danger-city, that idea is pretty much a non-starter...

One thing's for certain. The sooner that flying batch of cobbled-together King-Air castoffs stops flying, the better for all!

I'm sure Bank Air would sell you a bunch of gently used mitsus pretty cheap... buy 4 they throw in a lear.

 

[Boris Badenov]

Its not horrible to fly!!! not sure why I am defending the 99 here, but I am curious as to what its major problem is, in your opinion.

You're going to limit me to ONE?

1) Ridiculous, spiteful, loathesome trim system. No trim wheel and an electric trim that runs at warp 8. Perhaps not so irritating if you have an autopilot, but I didn't
2) Ferrari brakes with Hot Wheels tires
3) Absurdly inefficient. Frontal area of a small house and cruises below 10k but has two turbine engines. WTF?
4) Most of them now have 30k+ hours on them. If it were built like a Mitsi, that might not be a problem, but it isn't. This is not an aircraft that was designed to fly for 50 years, and this shows.
5) PT6
6) Finally, and perhaps most important: BORING. In the same way that I've heard a Van referred to as a Turbine Skyhawk, the 99 is a Turbine Baron. YAAAAAAWWWWNNNNNN.

PS. Oh, 7. I'm not crazy about that airstair door with its toy latch sitting back there, biding its time...

PPS. NO WINDSHIELD HEAT! Ours didn't have it, anyway. No bueno taxiing around Hartsfield trying to take off your shirt to wipe the condensation off the inside of the screen.

This could go on all night...

 

[SIUav8er]

haha!! so true man. especially the BORING part. It is one of the easiest airplanes I have ever flown. I feel lazy flying this thing.

buuuut... I think they are very well built as most Beechcraft are. I fly one with 45k hours and 75k cycles and with proper mx, I feel this plane has plenty of life left in it. I am really looking forward to get into a Metro though.

 

[SIUav8er]

3) it ain't pretty.

its an acquired taste in the looks department, That long nose is very "unique"

 

[KLB]

You're going to limit me to ONE?

1) Ridiculous, spiteful, loathesome trim system. No trim wheel and an electric trim that runs at warp 8. Perhaps not so irritating if you have an autopilot, but I didn't
2) Ferrari brakes with Hot Wheels tires
3) Absurdly inefficient. Frontal area of a small house and cruises below 10k but has two turbine engines. WTF?
4) Most of them now have 30k+ hours on them. If it were built like a Mitsi, that might not be a problem, but it isn't. This is not an aircraft that was designed to fly for 50 years, and this shows.
5) PT6
6) Finally, and perhaps most important: BORING. In the same way that I've heard a Van referred to as a Turbine Skyhawk, the 99 is a Turbine Baron. YAAAAAAWWWWNNNNNN.

PS. Oh, 7. I'm not crazy about that airstair door with its toy latch sitting back there, biding its time...

PPS. NO WINDSHIELD HEAT! Ours didn't have it, anyway. No bueno taxiing around Hartsfield trying to take off your shirt to wipe the condensation off the inside of the screen.

This could go on all night...

1. The metro doesn't have a trim wheel either and can be a real pita when it fails.
2. I don't know a 99 pilot who hasn't atleast flat spotted one 99 tire!
3. ATC doesn't like you because you fly low. No "direct when able" for you!
4. Not being pressurized was awful!
5. Long live the Garrett!
6. Real boring after the first 100hrs.
7. I recall "the company's" 99's having windshield heat.

AMF actually used to operate a mitsi or two.

 

[Maurus]

2. I don't know a 99 pilot who hasn't atleast flat spotted one 99 tire!

<-------

Knock on wood. Almost flat spotted a tire or two yesterday but got lucky. The brakes were a little spongy on that plane.

1. The metro doesn't have a trim wheel either and can be a real pita when it fails.
3. ATC doesn't like you because you fly low. No "direct when able" for you!
4. Not being pressurized was awful!
5. Long live the Garrett!
6. Real boring after the first 100hrs.
7. I recall "the company's" 99's having windshield heat.

AMF actually used to operate a mitsi or two.

We do have windshield heat.

I can see the plane getting boring. The only enjoyment I get with it now is when I get to pull the power back to flight idle during a descent.