Got to land a King Air 90 today...

Jay Honeck wrote:

Well, I guess I've been called worse things...

You *guess* you have?

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

Jay Honeck wrote:

Well, in retrospect it's hard to say if we were really over gross, or if
that's just how a 150 always performs.

You were well over. A typical 150 can carry about 300 pounds with full fuel.
For the flight you describe, you need about 10 gallons in the tanks. If that's
what you had, you could carry about 365 pounds. You two totalled nearly 100
pounds more than that, and I'd bet those weights you quoted didn't include your
flight gear, winter coats, etc..

A typical 150 can get off the ground in well under 1,000' and climb at about 600
fpm at max gross at your elevation. They'll do better at sea level, of course.
The '69 model I used to have gave me book performance with 6,000 hours on it and
a mid-time engine.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message news:K4g0c.1049

"John Gaquin" wrote in message

I'll drink to that! I flew a couple of years in a 402 for a commuter on
Cape Cod years ago. One day on a busy holiday weekend the fog was in
(of
course) and I flew 22 approachs in one day, every one of them to or near
minimums. Slept the sleep of the just that night.

Piston poppers are definitely much more work especially with marginal
power
envelopes during emergencies.

Never had any catastrophic failures(real) in that or any other airplane.
Flying the 402 was just going to work. I didn't think I was working
particularly hard at the time, until I got into a Boeing. That made the
single-pilot 402 look like a labor camp. :-)

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

Well, in retrospect it's hard to say if we were really over gross, or if
that's just how a 150 always performs.


You were well over. A typical 150 can carry about 300 pounds with full fuel.
For the flight you describe, you need about 10 gallons in the tanks. If that's
what you had, you could carry about 365 pounds. You two totalled nearly 100
pounds more than that, and I'd bet those weights you quoted didn't include your
flight gear, winter coats, etc..

A typical 150 can get off the ground in well under 1,000' and climb at about 600
fpm at max gross at your elevation. They'll do better at sea level, of course.
The '69 model I used to have gave me book performance with 6,000 hours on it and
a mid-time engine.

I wonder, when the good doctor offered his C150 to the pilot, did he
know there would be a second "pilot" along for the return flight?

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
You don't usually get to handle the controls with a stripper. :-(

Which "controls" are you referring to?

The tuning knobs, of course.

Reminds me of an old Reader's Digest, Campus Comedy tale...

A yound coed was having difficulty opening the drawers of her dorm room
bureau, so she put in a request for maintenance.

A day later, she was in the midst of changing when a knock came at the
door. She quickly through on a robe and answered the door.

It was the maintence man, who announced, "Hi, I'm here to fix the knobs
on your chest."

The flight is not really a charter. A doctor donates the use of his airplane
and pilot to fly a mission for a related party. Hardly unusual and certainly
well within the limits of part 91. Now, whether the flight violated school
sports recruiting standards might be another matter. :-)

For what it's worth, one of the side notes of the OSU basketball team
King Air 200 crash in Colorado in early 2001 was that the FAA declared
it to be a part 135 flight even though the situation was very similar
to this (the owner donated the use of the aircraft to the university,
and claimed to be operating it under part 91.) In that case as well
there was a pilot in the right seat who was not employed by the
operator nor trained in the operation of a BE20. I don't recall
whether he was multirated or not.

As these things always turn on subtleties, the two cases may well not
be comparable, but these things are seldom simple. If it walks and
quacks like a charter (on-demand ride somewhere in an aircraft not
owned or operated by the folks being transported) the FAA may well
declare it as such, even if no money changes hands. They get very
itchy about this sort of thing. The old adage about the victors
writing history comes to mind.

Not to rain on Jay's parade; I've got about 30 hours in King Air 200s
and they're a real hoot to fly, and well mannered and easy (as long
as nothing breaks...) My very first landing was at SFO, much to my
terror...

BTW, the NTSB ultimately decided that the cause of the OSU crash was a
failing AC inverter, which caused much of the instrumentation to die,
and a graveyard spiral resulted; as Jay now knows the plane has two
and required only a switch flip to bring the second one online, which
apparently the pilot failed to do even when faced with a whole lot of
warning lights.

I wonder, when the good doctor offered his C150 to the pilot, did he
know there would be a second "pilot" along for the return flight?

Actually the C-150 belongs to our FBO. They let the good doctor use it so
that he can reposition his King Air -- which he somehow leases back to them.

It's a complicated arrangement, and one I don't fully understand -- but it
seems to work well for all concerned.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Dave Katz wrote:
Not to rain on Jay's parade; I've got about 30 hours in King Air 200s
and they're a real hoot to fly, and well mannered and easy (as long
as nothing breaks...) My very first landing was at SFO, much to my
terror...

Yes, you might want to mention the 120 knot single engine approach
speed. ;-)

john smith writes:

Yes, you might want to mention the 120 knot single engine approach
speed. ;-)

Haven't done a single engine approach, happily, but I did have to do a
couple of no-flaps approaches (at night) after the rather odd
split-flap avoidance mechanism failed (by refusing to move the flaps
at all.) 120 over the fence was kind of fun; luckily the runways were
long (VNY and MRY) and reversable props are quite helpful. I believe
my quote of the evening was "Yee hah!" ;-)

They're just overgrown Barons, really, with better short field
performance. ;-)

In that case as well
there was a pilot in the right seat who was not employed by the
operator nor trained in the operation of a BE20.

If a King Air 200 is a "BE20," is a King Air 90 a "BE9"?

Just want to fill out the logbook correctly, and I didn't think to ask at
12:30 AM...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"