Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Did I mention "slower than Molasses in January"? I've got a book of these...
99 replacement aircraft?
- Thread starter Douglas
- Start date
Cal Goat
Prestige Worldwide™
only morons flat spot tires... just sayin
I've never flown a 99, but I'm proud (I suppose) to say I once destroyed a King Air tire by locking it up.
spbrian
Well-Known Member
only morons flat spot tires... just sayin
Easy turbo
1. The trim systems just fine once you get used to it. Call me lazy but now I'd rather have an electric trim vs. spending my precious energy spinning a whiz wheel.
2. Thank god I'm not the only one. FYI if you are landing behind me, I will be using the whole runway to slow down. Oh, and no more than 20-30% flaps seems to be the sweet spot.
3. Myth. ATC loves me. You just gotta sweet talk em a bit. We can handle 18k but the 02 bottle for 4 hours makes for crusty noses.
4. Eh, again call me lazy but one less thing to worry about. We don't have to worry about decompression, only if the tank runs out of air.
5. No comment.
6. Really really really boring except for the first and last 10 mins. But than again any airplane is like that IMHO. At least most 99 routes are usually less than 2 hours or so. Its those charters that last 10 hours in the middle of the night staring at the ITTs that make you consider enrolling back to school.
7. If I were a rich man, I'd have the the 99 windshield heat on my mustang!
Its hilarious in the winter watching the Iron Air guys hover around the WX computer in Rhinelander biting their nails about the ice all the way to MKE in their Vans. Not so hilarious when ATC makes me slow down 40 knots the whole way cause I got behind one of em and they wont let me get around em.
ackeight
Well-Known Member
http://www.geciaviation.com/fr/sk105.html
Buying new airplanes is never the 135 cargo forte, but this looks like a nice replacement if they build it.
Buying new airplanes is never the 135 cargo forte, but this looks like a nice replacement if they build it.
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
And at a projected cost of $6mil/plane it is a steal!
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
KLB
Well-Known Member
It's nice, but a bit on the slow side. It would be good for those 45 minute to 1.5hr flights though. I'd fly the wings off of it if it gave me glass/fms time that the majors are whining about.
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
At that price you could buy Piaggios and run cargo in them for a whole lot faster and most likely less fuel burn too. Without the interior you can get the Piaggio down to about 6750lbs BOW, with a max take off weight of 11,500. Although this Skylander seems more in the range of 1900/Metro replacement -- but you can find tons of cheap 1900Ds on the market these days and they are boss so why buy a new airframe?
KLB
Well-Known Member
For some reason, "the company" seems to be shying away from 1900D's. It's something about them that they don't like.
KLB
Well-Known Member
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
Cal Goat
Prestige Worldwide™
But can it hold ice???
ackeight
Well-Known Member
If you put it in coolers. Who knows it's just a concept right now.
PetrolBurner
Flying inside the TFRs
I'm a bit partial but I'd say the 99 wins in the looks department over the King Air. I love the big beautiful nose, now the King Air just looks short and stubby. Plus it's all about volume in this business. I run 100% full every morning and I have rarely even come close to max weight.
Yeah, yeah we all know Boris masturbates to Garrett schematics, but the truth is the PT6 is a fantastic turbo prop design. They wouldn't be hanging on so many airframes in so many variations if they weren't.
They have left and right windshield heat.
Whining about the trim system? Really?
The 99 is a very fine aircraft to fly, it makes good pilots look great! Light responsive controls, smooth and stable, what more do you want?
Low altitude, higher fuel burn, no pressurization. That's a tradeoff, you want redundancy of systems and engines you pay for it. You want the weight/cost savings and simplicity of unpressurized, then you pay for it in the fuel burn.
PS, I would hate to trade the 99 for a Caravan, I can't imagine who would want to?
Yeah, yeah we all know Boris masturbates to Garrett schematics, but the truth is the PT6 is a fantastic turbo prop design. They wouldn't be hanging on so many airframes in so many variations if they weren't.
They have left and right windshield heat.
Whining about the trim system? Really?
The 99 is a very fine aircraft to fly, it makes good pilots look great! Light responsive controls, smooth and stable, what more do you want?
Low altitude, higher fuel burn, no pressurization. That's a tradeoff, you want redundancy of systems and engines you pay for it. You want the weight/cost savings and simplicity of unpressurized, then you pay for it in the fuel burn.
PS, I would hate to trade the 99 for a Caravan, I can't imagine who would want to?
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
I liked the Van provided there was no ice. It could be a lot faster too...
The trim system is kind of BS. Would it have killed them to put a wheel in there?
PetrolBurner
Flying inside the TFRs
Beech was trying to build this amazing new little Airliner at first. Notice how many systems are AC electric in the B model vs the C model. Also notice that the 1900 got a manual trim wheel. However, I'd still rather be in a 99 wishing for a manual trim wheel than in a Caravan wishing I wasn't in ice!
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
...but you could be in an MU-2 cruising on autopilot in the flight levels well above the freezing level and going a solid 70 knots faster (and looking suave and sophisticated in the process). With a trim wheel. 
Maurus
The Great Gazoo
Too bad training costs killed the MU-2 at AMF...but you could be in an MU-2 cruising on autopilot in the flight levels well above the freezing level and going a solid 70 knots faster (and looking suave and sophisticated in the process). With a trim wheel.