My favorite turboprop is the 300 King Air because all of the
little hold over plumbing problems were fixed. It was
stable, the flight controls were smooth and well harmonized.
The CG range and gross weight were nearly impossible to
exceed unless you were flying lead or gold. It had the
ability to fill all the seats with grown men, top all the
tanks and fly 2,000 miles and be in the VG at take-off and
landing, don't try that in a Cheyenne 400.
The early A90 King Air used combustion heater just like a
Queen Air, and the operation of the fuel system involved the
pilot properly setting the system before take-off and
monitoring the operation. A Transport Canada King Air was
lost because the pilot was not setting the fuel boost pumps
to auto before take-off. When the fuel level in the nacelle
tank drops through the set level, the boost pump comes on to
refill the nacelle. On the early airplanes if you didn't
arm the system before the signal, it would not turn the pump
on automatically. Later airplanes fixed that silly design
flaw, the pump will come on anytime the level is low and the
pump is in auto.
The trick the CDOT pilot didn't know or forgot was to "test"
the boost pumps when he decided to manually refill his
nacelle tanks. Of course he was violating the operating
procedures and AFM, but what the Hell, all pilots are
perfect.
--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...
| Everything I have heard about the Duke is consistant with
your statements
| and certainly a turbine Duke is better than a piston Duke.
Piston twins
| have some of the high reliability systems of the
turboprops, but the factory
| turboprops have *all* of them. I would even go so far as
to say that the
| factory turboprops that started as pistons (King Air 90,
Conquest, Cheyenne
| and Meridian) are inferior in a number of ways to the
airplanes that were
| designed for turbine power from the beginning. Ultimately
airplanes are
| flying sets of compromises between cost, weight,
robustness and utility and
| designers choose different compromises when the airplanes
are powered by
| turbines instead of pistons.
|
|
| Mike
| MU-2
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news
zfnf.28446$QW2.15610@dukeread08...
| The Duke does have a dual bus system, a real hot
windshield
| and plenty of room in the panel. The control systems
were
| designed for operation at altitude and there is a lot
more
| cabin room. The Duke's biggest failing is that it is
heavy
| and the big Lycoming engines are easy to abuse. But
doing a
| conversion when there are a number of "better"
turboprops on
| the market seems a waste of money. Seems more sensible
to
| buy a decent airplane, such as a King Air and refurb it
with
| interior, avionics and new paint. The Duke is old, will
be
| as expensive to operate as a King Air and is one of the
best
| looking Beech aircraft built.
|
|
| "Mike Rapoport" wrote in
message
|
nk.net...
| |
| | wrote in message
| |
|
oups.com...
| | For the same money, you could buy a Mitsubishi
| Solitaire and go faster
| | with
| | a larger cabin and (probably) more reliable
systems
| |
| | How much faster are we talking here? Never flown in
an
| MU-2, but I've
| | heard they can be a handful and there are plenty of
NTSB
| reports on
| | Mitsu accidents. I read recently about the FAA
looking
| into the recent
| | accidents with these planes. May very well be
related to
| training
| | issues but the plane seems to have a rep, kinda like
the
| Aerostar did
| | years back IIRC. I think I'd feel more comfortable
with
| a conventional
| | aileron/flap than the spoiler. As far as systems
| reliability, not sure
| | why you think there'd be an appreciable
difference(?)
| |
| | Wooly
| |
| |
| | The Solitair will go 315kts and has a Vmo of 250KTIAS.
| What is the
| | accident record on turbine Baron's and Dukes? They
are
| going to have the
| | same problems as other high-performance-owner-flown
| aircraft. The problem
| | is pilots that fly ~100hrs/yr when fatigued and in bad
| weather and often
| | don't get enough training. I think the TBM 700
actually
| has the worst
| | accident record of any turboprop. How many pilots who
| just paid over $2
| | million for their TBM get failed in initial training
| (zero). They get
| | signed off and then go crash. If the same pilots
could
| try flying Learjets
| | single pilot, they would crash even more. Give them
F104s
| and they would
| | all be dead. I suspect that when the big training
centers
| lose a few more
| | lawsuits this may change (hopefully).
| |
| | There is no difference in handling between ailerons
and
| spoilers except that
| | spoilers are more effective at low speeds. Two pilot
| crews of Beachjets
| | aren't crashing or complaining about the spoilers on
their
| airplanes. The
| | MU-2 does have a bad rep even though its accident
record
| is middle of the
| | turboprop pack.. The current investigation is
political
| (the FAA
| | acknowledges this) and includes several CFIT, gear up
| landings and even a
| | crash into a ground vehicle on the runway. The whole
| notion that an 18
| | month spike in accidents with no common cause could be
| attributed to the
| | design of an airplane that has been flying over 35yrs
is
| crazy since the
| | design of the airplane didn't change! The conclusion
will
| be (again) that
| | the pilots who do not undergo frequent recurent
simulator
| training have
| | accident rates 10x the pilots who do. I wish that my
| government wouldn't
| | waste my money tilting at windmills. Almost all the
| accidents whether
| | Skyhawk, MU-2, Super Cub or anything else are pilot
error.
| The more capable
| | airplanes get flown into more weather over longer
| distances and are often
| | flown for business where there is pressure to get
there
| and back on time.
| | The high-performance-owner-flown aircraft gets all
these
| increased risks but
| | no two-pilot professional crew. The lower performance
| aircraft don't get
| | flown halfway across the country in large thunderstorm
| complexes by tired
| | business people at the end of a long day. My own
| situation is that every
| | flight in the MU-2 is over mountains, at night in the
PNW
| where the weather
| | is often bad. In contrast, I have never flown the
Helio
| at night and only
| | once in IMC because there are no Helio flight where I
| *have* to get there.
| |
| | Generally, you will find that aircraft originally
designed
| for turbines will
| | have better *everything* from structure to avionics to
| systems like heated
| | glass windshields (instead of narrow "hot plates),
full
| dual-bus systems,
| | remote electric gyros, bearings instead of bushings
ect..
| It isn't just the
| | engine that make a TBM cost more than a Malibu, it is
a
| whole host of
| | improvements.. They can incorporated these things
because
| the airplane has
| | so much more power that some weight can be traded for
| better, higher
| | reliability, systems. When you do a conversion you
get a
| piston airplane
| | with turbine engines. I am certainly not against
| conversions, I am
| | contemplating a turbine in my Helio but the reason I
am
| thinking about it is
| | that there is no aircraft with comparable performance.
If
| there where, I
| | would prefer to buy the proven, tested, solution.
| |
| | BTW The most effective turbine conversions tend to be
| radial engined
| | airplanes like Otters, Beavers, the various Grumman
flying
| boats and DC3s.
| | The greatly improved aerodynamics from getting rid of
the
| draggy radial
| | overcome the thirsty turbine engines. Of course they
| don't sound as
| | good....
| |
| |
| | Mike
| | MU-2
| |
| |
|
|
|
|