This is my favorite twin-engine airplane, I've always loved the Super King Air. I had the great opportunity to finally fly in one way back in 1985, my only time.
lee king airs can land at many more airports than a jet. Not sure if the cost of the upgrade will payoff for most people. I sure can’t afford to buy a king air let alone sit in one.
Which jet carries 6-8 people 1200 NM that can land on gravel runways, under 4000' long and cost the same to operate as a King Air and can be bought for under $3 million with new engines, new paint and interior?
@@toufikemroj8855 because, most often, pilots fail to accurately account for weights and balances. Any overloaded aircraft will flounder, and pilot error is the overwhelming cause of most all the KA series crashes.
Amazing work, inside and out I always ask myself what is it about king air that attract me so much like no other jet? Well, I know the answer. It's everything.
About 1,000 of my 8,000 hours are single pilot in 90 series King Airs from early 90s, 200, 300, and 1900s. I also have 100 hours in te BE 400 which was designed to be single pilot. The only thing the left seat can't reach is te oxygen on/off valve which is a preflight itembefore the walk-around. All the CB are on the pilots side panel. But several high profile crashes led the FAA to decline single pilot certification. Beech had no desire to push it. The ATP ride in the 300 King Air was for SP priviledges. Unlike teh Cessna Citation the FAA required the entire flight be hand flown to ATP standards with engine failures, restarts, radio and nav tuning and route setup on first generation systems. The autopilot was considerd to be inop. The Beechjet is much easier to fly than any King Air. If I win the lottery 'll buy several Beechjets and do an STC for single pilot.
Two brand new turboprop with uprated horsepower, two brand new five blade swept composite (infinite lifetime) props, better performance vs getting a pair of reman engines with who knows how many hours, unless you keep your own, in which case add longer downtime waiting for the reman process to finish....If you work it out, it's worth the money on an aircraft that you initially laid out as much as 4.7 M for to begin with. Propulsion and avionics are what make aircraft expensive, and for good reason; when they fail, people die, thus, quality and reliability matter.
Yeah.. no way a few months of a rental engine while you get your own even comes close to what this costs. And you have to be above 20,000 feet to take advantage and you’re not going to climb any faster below 20,000 because the engines are still rated at 1050 a side. If you’re constantly doing stage lengths where it makes a difference, just get a jet. The PC-24 will land and take off anywhere this will if you need the field performance.
Just wondering how this compares to an Aerostar? Costs less than just the upgrade for the King Air, lower maintenence cost since it's piston instead of turbine, comparable speed? Maybe the turbine can fly higher?
What about the engine/aircraft efficiency ? What about fuel cunsumption ? Or if you are only bothered by sheer power you can bolt on a Pratt PW 100 and see how it goes. I'm sure the King Air will be even faster for the few first miles flown, until you don't have any fuel left.
OK, I'm not in the airplane industry but with the cost of a king air to begin with, and then this upgrade costing $1.78 million, and as they say, for the owner who wants to go fast, couldn't the money for the plane AND the upgrade get you into a light jet that would even go faster??
You could but why? Garrets are awful engines which is why no new plane has them anymore. Fuel efficiency doesn’t make up for hard starting, noise, and off-wing hot sections. Maintenance isn’t even an advantage anymore as you can run PT6 on condition indefinitely with certain programs.
Fuel burn is higher, but you get there much sooner, so it evens out. Besides, people don't mind higher fuel burn to go faster in jets. www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/december/pilot/king-air-300-reborn
I hate operating cost just to go fly a king air. That’s why owners partnership the cost or rent their aircraft out. I’m employed as a pilot and I don’t even make enough to afford a plane. If it’s not used for the furtherance of a business you can’t write nothing off.
$595,000 www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/20292609/1984-cessna-citation-iii-jet-aircraft Let's be honest, you're gonna pay one way or the other, through maintainance especially!
Because it can go into double the airports the Citation can and at typical stage lengths isn’t really at that great of a speed disadvantage especially if you kept high and need to go down fast. I fly a 350 and a Citation 560 was above me on tbe STAR and ATC wanted him in front. Wouldn’t give me a speed restriction so I kept it at barberpole. He could not pass me.. finally after laddering him down he relented and vectored us off the STAR for a high unrestricted visual. Could have done 250 at the FAF if he wanted us too. Jets suck unless you’re going really long distances. Even then.. chances are it will be broken and the King Air will still win.
@@calvinnickel9995 Jet can fly above 40,000 feet. Jet is faster and much more comfortable. Jet is much safer. Jet is easier to fly. The failure of one engine in King Air is almost always the end. Turbopropes suck unless you’re going really short distances.
You can't overhaul two -60A engines for $500,000 for the pair. More like $700-800,000 depending on condition with no performance increase. The new Hartzell Composite props are $140,000 by themselves. You get two factory new PT6A-67A engines and two factory new composite props and a pretty respectable performance boost. We get a discount from Pratt due to the number of engines we buy which we pass on to the customer. A new -67A from Pratt will run you about $1,000,000 each exchange. Then add the props etc. It's all what you are looking for, but thank you for watching the video.
The response from Jim sounds good, right?? Even attracts people that doesn't know a thing. We're talking about REAL facts.. increasing 30% or less in efficiency spending about 1.7 Millions sounds no sense!! I prefer keep it mine as it is. Maybe for others it's a great choice but not for me.. be my guest!
@@hgalindo12 When it comes time for a major overhaul, ask your accountant to run the numbers. Put $750k into old engines with 1000s of hours, or bonus depreciation on brand new engines? Added plus is shorter downtime for an engine swap, rather than complete disassembly for an overhaul.
I will agree that on paper they are better, but at the end of the day the king air has better short field performances, is easier to fly, easier and cheaper to maintain. But to each their own.
Why, on earth, would you put a pt6 in a king air as a UPGRADE. ? The best choice for performance, cost, power, speed, quick power response is obviously the TPE-331. The BEST conversion would have been a tpe-331, not a pt-6. This industry is so biased and in many cases, wrongfully so.
The 400ls does 350kts tas. So it’s not faster. It’s a lot more frugal though and has a 2000nm range. Getting parts and finding an experienced mechanic to work on them is an issue. If I was in the market for a 350kt turboprop with 2000+ m’n range I would get a 350ER. At those ranges you’d be better off with a jet like a Phenom 300 or CJ4 though. Almost 100kt faster.
@@jimallmon2383 No, that's incorrect. They built, I believe, 48 of them. At least 44. I'm not sure how many are still flying. I test flew two a couple years back. They are awesome airplanes but I was scared that I wouldn't be able to get parts. But, as far as speed, range, and climb, you can't touch them unless you buy a jet or a Piaggio. And I can't afford either of those options so I wound up in a Cessna 441/Conquest II.
FRIENDS DON'T BUY ANY KING AIR PRODUCT BECAUSE IT DOES ALWAYS CRASH.... MANY MANY CRASH......😠😠😠 PLEASE BUY A GOOD BUSINESS JET LIKE PHENOM 100/300 OR HONDA JET .... MORE MORE LATEST VERSION IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW.....❤️❤️❤️ THANKS SUGGEST FROM INDIA 🇮🇳👍👍 👍💖💐🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳
Do you realize how many King Airs have been produced and are still flying? Statistically, they are a very safe and reliable aircraft. I probably wouldn't do the PT6A-67A engine upgrade, just because I can't see the value in it, but for a number of mission profiles, you can't beat a King Air.
There's nothing wrong with the King Air design. I watched one crash just outside my window (my office overlooks Long Beach Airport) and kill five out of six aboard. Seeing the orange and black fireball, it amazed me that there was a survivor. But that turned out to be because of water in the fuel killing the engines and mismanagement of total loss of power at 400 feet by the pilot. Such pilot errors are behind nearly all King Air crashes. I will say that a turboprop twin is more difficult to manage with a failed engine than is a jet due to the thrust of the good engine being farther from the centerline of the aircraft. That may not be true of the Honda Jet however.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 68 | คู่เอก "พระจันทร์ฉาย vs โจนาธาน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/F3IM3w-XchI/mqdefault.jpg)
Such a beautiful sleek plane. Soooo nice.
This is my favorite twin-engine airplane, I've always loved the Super King Air. I had the great opportunity to finally fly in one way back in 1985, my only time.
With so few of them made, you’re in a class all by yourself. That’s a bad ass plane!
Thanks for sharing - amazing engine and Beautiful airplane.
Thanks!
Beautiful upgrade, adding classiness to classy. Shweeeet!
The best plane... and now the superbestplane!🇮🇹❤
All that buy in money in a King air and 1.7+ million for the upgraded engines AND the interior upgrades, JUST BUY the damn jet !!!
lee king airs can land at many more airports than a jet. Not sure if the cost of the upgrade will payoff for most people. I sure can’t afford to buy a king air let alone sit in one.
Which jet carries 6-8 people 1200 NM that can land on gravel runways, under 4000' long and cost the same to operate as a King Air and can be bought for under $3 million with new engines, new paint and interior?
@@jimallmon2383 so why kingair does always Crash????
@@toufikemroj8855 because, most often, pilots fail to accurately account for weights and balances. Any overloaded aircraft will flounder, and pilot error is the overwhelming cause of most all the KA series crashes.
Isnt the King Air 350 better?
Amazing work, inside and out
I always ask myself what is it about king air that attract me so much like no other jet? Well, I know the answer.
It's everything.
About 1,000 of my 8,000 hours are single pilot in 90 series King Airs from early 90s, 200, 300, and 1900s. I also have 100 hours in te BE 400 which was designed to be single pilot. The only thing the left seat can't reach is te oxygen on/off valve which is a preflight itembefore the walk-around. All the CB are on the pilots side panel. But several high profile crashes led the FAA to decline single pilot certification. Beech had no desire to push it.
The ATP ride in the 300 King Air was for SP priviledges. Unlike teh Cessna Citation the FAA required the entire flight be hand flown to ATP standards with engine failures, restarts, radio and nav tuning and route setup on first generation systems. The autopilot was considerd to be inop. The Beechjet is much easier to fly than any King Air.
If I win the lottery 'll buy several Beechjets and do an STC for single pilot.
1.7M for the "upgrade"? WOW. No thanks.
Two brand new turboprop with uprated horsepower, two brand new five blade swept composite (infinite lifetime) props, better performance vs getting a pair of reman engines with who knows how many hours, unless you keep your own, in which case add longer downtime waiting for the reman process to finish....If you work it out, it's worth the money on an aircraft that you initially laid out as much as 4.7 M for to begin with. Propulsion and avionics are what make aircraft expensive, and for good reason; when they fail, people die, thus, quality and reliability matter.
Yeah.. no way a few months of a rental engine while you get your own even comes close to what this costs.
And you have to be above 20,000 feet to take advantage and you’re not going to climb any faster below 20,000 because the engines are still rated at 1050 a side.
If you’re constantly doing stage lengths where it makes a difference, just get a jet. The PC-24 will land and take off anywhere this will if you need the field performance.
that is the cost?
i was shoet by 1m
If you have to ask, you can’t afford it. LOL
Awesome plane.
Just wondering how this compares to an Aerostar? Costs less than just the upgrade for the King Air, lower maintenence cost since it's piston instead of turbine, comparable speed? Maybe the turbine can fly higher?
How severely is range compromised?
He smiling 😊
What about the engine/aircraft efficiency ? What about fuel cunsumption ? Or if you are only bothered by sheer power you can bolt on a Pratt PW 100 and see how it goes. I'm sure the King Air will be even faster for the few first miles flown, until you don't have any fuel left.
Yea, but can the extra speed overstress the plane.
Dear Team, what’s about range, any reduction or increase ?
I fly frequently in one with the upgrade, it's basically the same.
@@romanflys6544 Thank you
@@SuperAvantgard No problem, I have video's with a Blawkhawded King Air 350 I regularly fly in on my channel if you want to see one in action
I wonder how much fuel they had onboard.
Wonder what the FF is? I've got thousands of hrs in the B200 and reckon they are pretty good as is!
Do you offer this on the King Ranch 350i?
Yes we do. We will have it approved with the Fusion avionics in late June 2020.
Jim Allmon the new electric turbines have afterburners.
Gostaria de voar em um 350.
Waco ???!!!...Did he say Waco, as in Texas???!!!...
OK, I'm not in the airplane industry but with the cost of a king air to begin with, and then this upgrade costing $1.78 million, and as they say, for the owner who wants to go fast, couldn't the money for the plane AND the upgrade get you into a light jet that would even go faster??
Field performance.
Can you squeeze Garrett TPE331-14's into that plane?
You could but why?
Garrets are awful engines which is why no new plane has them anymore. Fuel efficiency doesn’t make up for hard starting, noise, and off-wing hot sections. Maintenance isn’t even an advantage anymore as you can run PT6 on condition indefinitely with certain programs.
1.6milion for 25kt?
What happens to range and fuel burn with this configuration?
I'm pretty sure you get more range depending on power settings
Bonanza Driver That’s true thinking about it
Seems an odd detail to leave out when talking about an engine conversion. We got the horsepower, the speed, but no info on fuel consumption.
Christian Lemon I agree with that would be nice to see those details
Fuel burn is higher, but you get there much sooner, so it evens out.
Besides, people don't mind higher fuel burn to go faster in jets.
www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/december/pilot/king-air-300-reborn
I hate operating cost just to go fly a king air. That’s why owners partnership the cost or rent their aircraft out. I’m employed as a pilot and I don’t even make enough to afford a plane. If it’s not used for the furtherance of a business you can’t write nothing off.
They don't do their work in house. I wonder about quality if they don't hire their own technicians
King air 300 is king
Isnt the King Air 350 better?
Why don't you offer the BLR winglets and their 5 blade composite props. You have fallen short Blackhawk
🥰🥰LUXURY LIFESTYLE 🥰🥰
You can get a used Citation III for
$595,000 www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/20292609/1984-cessna-citation-iii-jet-aircraft
Let's be honest, you're gonna pay one way or the other, through maintainance especially!
Because it can go into double the airports the Citation can and at typical stage lengths isn’t really at that great of a speed disadvantage especially if you kept high and need to go down fast.
I fly a 350 and a Citation 560 was above me on tbe STAR and ATC wanted him in front. Wouldn’t give me a speed restriction so I kept it at barberpole. He could not pass me.. finally after laddering him down he relented and vectored us off the STAR for a high unrestricted visual. Could have done 250 at the FAF if he wanted us too.
Jets suck unless you’re going really long distances. Even then.. chances are it will be broken and the King Air will still win.
@@calvinnickel9995 excellent response.
@@calvinnickel9995 Jet can fly above 40,000 feet. Jet is faster and much more comfortable. Jet is much safer. Jet is easier to fly. The failure of one engine in King Air is almost always the end. Turbopropes suck unless you’re going really short distances.
I thought the price would be around 300k-500k max. But 1.7M??!! It's ridiculous!!
You can't overhaul two -60A engines for $500,000 for the pair. More like $700-800,000 depending on condition with no performance increase. The new Hartzell Composite props are $140,000 by themselves. You get two factory new PT6A-67A engines and two factory new composite props and a pretty respectable performance boost. We get a discount from Pratt due to the number of engines we buy which we pass on to the customer. A new -67A from Pratt will run you about $1,000,000 each exchange. Then add the props etc. It's all what you are looking for, but thank you for watching the video.
Nothing beats ignorance better than the cold hard facts.
The response from Jim sounds good, right?? Even attracts people that doesn't know a thing. We're talking about REAL facts.. increasing 30% or less in efficiency spending about 1.7 Millions sounds no sense!! I prefer keep it mine as it is. Maybe for others it's a great choice but not for me.. be my guest!
@@hgalindo12 When it comes time for a major overhaul, ask your accountant to run the numbers. Put $750k into old engines with 1000s of hours, or bonus depreciation on brand new engines? Added plus is shorter downtime for an engine swap, rather than complete disassembly for an overhaul.
@@andyk9624 If that were the case, I think you're right.
Wood grain.
TX; Go big or GO HOME!
I need this for my drug and weapon trafficking enterprise
Damm mann Holy Cow are u kidding? $1.7 Million! My blood pressure is way up I feel poor. Crapola
I will buy phenom 300/phenom 100/cj4..... better than King air and more latest version...👍👍❤️❤️
I will agree that on paper they are better, but at the end of the day the king air has better short field performances, is easier to fly, easier and cheaper to maintain. But to each their own.
And a MUCH smaller cabin. You buy a Ferrari to look cool and carry 1 passenger. You buy a King Air because you want to take more people with you.
@@jimallmon2383 Agree. King Air is a superb business tool, getting in and out of airports that the jets can't....or won't try.
This Toufik fellow is a clueless idiot.
Blackhawk makes their money by getting their engines cheap from PTC. They don't care about the total package
4
Why, on earth, would you put a pt6 in a king air as a UPGRADE. ? The best choice for performance, cost, power, speed, quick power response is obviously the TPE-331. The BEST conversion would have been a tpe-331, not a pt-6. This industry is so biased and in many cases, wrongfully so.
Because Honeywell is made in China now, that's why!!!
Hey, if you are patient enough and have time, please do explain why not pt6 and why tpe331 ?
IF YOU BUY AND USE IT IN THE SKY YOUR LIFE WILL BE IN DENGER 😂😂😂
Cheyenne 400ls way faster guys come on.
Not really. Only 35 of those were built and it is no longer supported by Piper.
The 400ls does 350kts tas. So it’s not faster. It’s a lot more frugal though and has a 2000nm range. Getting parts and finding an experienced mechanic to work on them is an issue. If I was in the market for a 350kt turboprop with 2000+ m’n range I would get a 350ER. At those ranges you’d be better off with a jet like a Phenom 300 or CJ4 though. Almost 100kt faster.
@@bigc208 absolutely.....Phenom 300 is better better ❤️❤️❤️👍👍👍 I also hate kingair because for Many Crashes... 😠😠
@@toufikemroj8855 They don't crash if the pilot(s) are competent and proficient.
@@jimallmon2383 No, that's incorrect. They built, I believe, 48 of them. At least 44. I'm not sure how many are still flying. I test flew two a couple years back. They are awesome airplanes but I was scared that I wouldn't be able to get parts. But, as far as speed, range, and climb, you can't touch them unless you buy a jet or a Piaggio. And I can't afford either of those options so I wound up in a Cessna 441/Conquest II.
for 1.7 million Blackhawk is a ripoff
FRIENDS DON'T BUY ANY KING AIR PRODUCT BECAUSE IT DOES ALWAYS CRASH.... MANY MANY CRASH......😠😠😠
PLEASE BUY A GOOD BUSINESS JET LIKE PHENOM 100/300 OR HONDA JET .... MORE MORE LATEST VERSION IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW.....❤️❤️❤️ THANKS
SUGGEST FROM INDIA 🇮🇳👍👍 👍💖💐🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳
Do you realize how many King Airs have been produced and are still flying? Statistically, they are a very safe and reliable aircraft. I probably wouldn't do the PT6A-67A engine upgrade, just because I can't see the value in it, but for a number of mission profiles, you can't beat a King Air.
@@mnsitelecom5131 what about the F50?
There's nothing wrong with the King Air design. I watched one crash just outside my window (my office overlooks Long Beach Airport) and kill five out of six aboard. Seeing the orange and black fireball, it amazed me that there was a survivor. But that turned out to be because of water in the fuel killing the engines and mismanagement of total loss of power at 400 feet by the pilot. Such pilot errors are behind nearly all King Air crashes. I will say that a turboprop twin is more difficult to manage with a failed engine than is a jet due to the thrust of the good engine being farther from the centerline of the aircraft. That may not be true of the Honda Jet however.