Turboprop comparison

Had this short exchange with a CA...

CA: "How's the piece of S%^!, I mean it is a Q, but how is it fly'n..errr is anything broke....errrrr how's the ride...?
Me: Yeah...have fun
CA: Great...
 
I have about 20 hours in a KA200 and it has been an absolute joy to fly. Lands really easy, great takeoff performance, and super comfortable. It is a bit of a pain to get in and out of the seat if you have to get up to help passengers at all. Then again I'm 6'3". I don't have any other Turbine experience, so I can't comment. I fly with a guy who has over 2,000 hours in a 1900 and he said that thing was a beast of a turboprop... Whatever that means. A guy on the field I'm acquaintances with has a Cheyenne III I've been trying to get in on for a few months... One of these days.
 
If I had to pick one airplane to fly for the rest of my life and nothing else I would be fine flying the Turbine Beaver (DHC 2 MKIII). Tons of power, lands super slow, goes just about any where on wheels skis and floats. Turbine, tail wheel, and super easy to fly.
 
I love the PC-12, it is a giant 172 that can go 260kts in the flight levels. Not many other planes can do that. The Beech 99 was fun too. Meridian was fun with no people in it.
 
Snuggle said:
1900, q400, saab340. In that order of preference. Saab does have an awesome autopilot though
Click to expand...
1900 had a fine autopilot on every model: guys like you and me.

*makes crude, explicit, career ending jokes about the captain and why he couldn't fly the whole day*
 
I've got about 600 on the KA200 1500 on the KA300 and 1200 on the KA350. Out of those and all my other TP time (MU-2, CE425, CE441, Commander 690B w/TPE331-10) I would say the KA300 was the best.

It hauls a lot, a fast +310 and lighter on the controls and easier in a crosswind than a 350. A 200 however with high float gear, is a dream to land.

The CE441 is a fantastic plane for a pilot but with all the pluses of the TPE331-10 they get outweighed quickly by the minuses.

I'd like to read from some experienced 300/350 pilots who have PC12 and Avanti time. How do the 3 types compare.



Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
 
King Air 200 gets my vote - although I did get to fly a TBM700 and that was fun! I fly a King Air C90B as my main gig now and I miss the speed and utility of the 200. The 90 doesnt take off, climb or land like the 200 and its really a high teens airplane whereas the 200 will truck on at FL250 all day long. The 300 is an overlooked airplane IMHO - great performance and good useful load.

Bp244
 
Baronpilot244 said:
King Air 200 gets my vote - although I did get to fly a TBM700 and that was fun! I fly a King Air C90B as my main gig now and I miss the speed and utility of the 200. The 90 doesnt take off, climb or land like the 200 and its really a high teens airplane whereas the 200 will truck on at FL250 all day long. The 300 is an overlooked airplane IMHO - great performance and good useful load.
Bp244
Click to expand...
I still haven't gotten to fly a King Air. I want to, though. Twin Bonanza and Queen Air = hooked on Beech, despite some of their shortcomings.

(From what I understand, though, the 99 can go to hell.)
XcalibeR said:
Bro = Who designed this plane? Seriously? Whoever it was needs to be dragged into the street and flogged medieval style. It's fast enough for a TP, can carry a decent amount of weight, climbs ok, and generally works well (not great, but well). But seriously, who designs a propeller system whos default is catastrophic overspeed? Has Embraer never heard of counter-weights?
Click to expand...
Pretty much. Fun to fly, heavy on the controls. Quality Brazilian engineering. Has its fair share of annoyances, to be expected. With you on the props - I'm sure Hamilton Sundstrand, P&WC and Embraer all have reasons for why they are set up the way they are, but I'm surprised that "fail catastrophic" is how the system fails.

The TBM 700 is my favorite single-engine airplane. Flies nicely. Flies fast.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
I still haven't gotten to fly a King Air. I want to, though. Twin Bonanza and Queen Air = hooked on Beech, despite some of their shortcomings.

(From what I understand, though, the 99 can go to hell.)

Pretty much. Fun to fly, heavy on the controls. Quality Brazilian engineering. Has its fair share of annoyances, to be expected. With you on the props - I'm sure Hamilton Sundstrand, P&WC and Embraer all have reasons for why they are set up the way they are, but I'm surprised that "fail catastrophic" is how the system fails.

The TBM 700 is my favorite single-engine airplane. Flies nicely. Flies fast.
Click to expand...

Actually the 99 is awesome, I thoroughly enjoyed flying it other than the associated sleep deprivation. It was "fast" relatively speaking. It was super easy to fly - though landing it smoothly was something of a challenge for the first 100hrs or so. The only quirks I didn't like were the lack of pressurization - which for a freighter is understandable - the fact that it only had electric trim (I thought that was an oversight), and the fact that the airplane was so randomly unstable in cruise. I've never flown an airplane quite like it in that regard. You'd be all trimmed out with a normal to forward CG (aft was all kinds of ridiculous), wouldn't have made a control input in minutes, look down for a second to do paperwork, look up and be in a 30-40 degree bank.

As for the Bro, I can't comment, I'd really like to fly one though.
 
chrisreedrules said:
I have about 20 hours in a KA200 and it has been an absolute joy to fly. Lands really easy, great takeoff performance, and super comfortable. It is a bit of a pain to get in and out of the seat if you have to get up to help passengers at all. Then again I'm 6'3". I don't have any other Turbine experience, so I can't comment. I fly with a guy who has over 2,000 hours in a 1900 and he said that thing was a beast of a turboprop... Whatever that means. A guy on the field I'm acquaintances with has a Cheyenne III I've been trying to get in on for a few months... One of these days.
Click to expand...

I can't think of any other 17000lb airplane that you can load to the gills fly an hour, then land and pull off at the first taxiway. It's pretty badass.
 
ppragman said:
Actually the 99 is awesome, I thoroughly enjoyed flying it other than the associated sleep deprivation. It was "fast" relatively speaking. It was super easy to fly - though landing it smoothly was something of a challenge for the first 100hrs or so. The only quirks I didn't like were the lack of pressurization - which for a freighter is understandable - the fact that it only had electric trim (I thought that was an oversight), and the fact that the airplane was so randomly unstable in cruise. I've never flown an airplane quite like it in that regard. You'd be all trimmed out with a normal to forward CG (aft was all kinds of ridiculous), wouldn't have made a control input in minutes, look down for a second to do paperwork, look up and be in a 30-40 degree bank.
Click to expand...
That's odd, the TravelAire I rode in today seemed to have considerable instability in yaw - although that could have been the AP/YD fighting each other in turbulence. Our Twin Bonanza hunts around a bit too in yaw.

As for the Bro, I can't comment, I'd really like to fly one though.
Click to expand...
California flying is a blast. No complaints other than I don't get enough California flying on reserve. :)
 
Autothrust Blue said:
That's odd, the TravelAire I rode in today seemed to have considerable instability in yaw - although that could have been the AP/YD fighting each other in turbulence. Our Twin Bonanza hunts around a bit too in yaw.


California flying is a blast. No complaints other than I don't get enough California flying on reserve. :)
Click to expand...

Does the TravelAire have a rudder-aileron interconnect? I notice that the Navajo exhibits a slight tendency to dutch roll in turbulence with the AP on.

Lol, who did you fly the bro for? It looked like such a cool airplane, fairly fast, and I bet it's pretty good on one engine too.
 
Dash 8 all the way, more specifically the 300 model. Big airplane feel, lands super easy, and when the NVS works, it's probably the one of the more quieter turboprops both from a passenger and flight crew standpoint. It is pitch sensitive, but roll heavy.
 
The metro is an absolute pile. Terribly designed and incredibly unstable. I think that's why I enjoy flying it so much.
 
jynxyjoe said:
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).
Click to expand...

It can carry everything most of the time... I miss how it climbed like a raped ape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top