B200 nerds: Please shoot figurative holes in this plane..

Looks like you found a very nice aircraft, can you afford operating expenses though?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
olasek said:
Looks like you found a very nice aircraft, can you afford operating expenses though?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...
Always an important question....which leads me to another question: what are the insurance premiums like for something with that kind of hull value?
 
Oh, insurance, no worry, it’s only roughly $50k or more, depending on your experience of course.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Btw, if you fly this beast 300 hrs a year which is quite normal use of aircraft to justify private ownership you would be looking at over $300k in fuel and maintenance cost. Among fixed costs hangar cost alone is about $27k.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
olasek said:
Oh, insurance, no worry, it’s only roughly $50k or more, depending on your experience of course.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

I'd guess a third of that for someone with 1000TT and 500 multi.
 
Shepherd said:
Piaggio Avanti.
Faster, higher, farther, more space, more luxurious, quieter, uses less fuel.
Love 'em.
As soon as I win the "Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes" I'm buying one.
Any day now. Any day.
Click to expand...
I don't want to burst your bubble or create any angst but Ed will not be stopping to visit.
 
A guy here has a 350 for personal use. I've got a good bit of time in the back of a F90, B200, and 350.... They're great airplanes, but I'd definitely go PC-12 or MU-2 for a personal TP.
 
Ive been told that a PPL with a single engine land could legally fly a TBM,with no need for a type ratings. TBM is comparable in speed and capacity and costs less to run. Maybe you should take a look at one of those and compare. King Airs are good airplanes. Heck, all three are good, great in fact!
 
coloradobluesky said:
Ive been told that a PPL with a single engine land could legally fly a TBM,with no need for a type ratings. TBM is comparable in speed and capacity and costs less to run. Maybe you should take a look at one of those and compare. King Airs are good airplanes. Heck, all three are good, great in fact!
Click to expand...
Yep. No type rating required for a TBM. Insurance would be the only kicker.
 
Shepherd said:
As soon as I win the "Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes" I'm buying one.
Click to expand...
That $5k/weekly for life scam? Soon after winning I’d imagine you would begin to wonder why your drink tastes a little funny...
 
coloradobluesky said:
Ive been told that a PPL with a single engine land could legally fly a TBM,with no need for a type ratings. TBM is comparable in speed and capacity and costs less to run. Maybe you should take a look at one of those and compare. King Airs are good airplanes. Heck, all three are good, great in fact!
Click to expand...
No king air aside from the 350/1900 requires a type rating, so theoretically you could do it in those, too. Same with the PC-12.
 
Not sure whether Wayne Bower is still in the business of advising King Air buyers. He seemed very knowledgeable about the type when he used to hang around here.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Ive been told that a PPL with a single engine land could legally fly a TBM,with no need for a type ratings. TBM is comparable in speed and capacity and costs less to run. Maybe you should take a look at one of those and compare. King Airs are good airplanes. Heck, all three are good, great in fact!
Click to expand...

Civilian B200s are below 12500 so no type rating required either. For pretty much anything that turns a turbine whether its 5000 or 12500lbs, structured training is going to be required if you want insurance*. So yes, technically you are legal with a PPL-ASEL, complex, high altitude and high performance endorsements to blast off in your new TBM. You just wont find someone to insure you.



* the Mitsubishi Mu2 being the exception, strutured initial and recurrent training is required by federal regulation
 
Insurance no where near $50K. Even for a low time pilot (by that I am talking 1500TT, 300 multi) rather than extremely high rates they will likely require a baby sitter for the first 50 - 100 hours. Recurrent training will be once a year. Initial will be in the $7K range then around $5K for subsequent training. When you are talking kerosene, you can't be asking "how much". The cheapest thing on a kerosene burner will be the pilot.
 
weilke said:
Civilian B200s are below 12500 so no type rating required either. For pretty much anything that turns a turbine whether its 5000 or 12500lbs, structured training is going to be required if you want insurance*. So yes, technically you are legal with a PPL-ASEL, complex, high altitude and high performance endorsements to blast off in your new TBM. You just wont find someone to insure you.



* the Mitsubishi Mu2 being the exception, strutured initial and recurrent training is required by federal regulation
Click to expand...
Same thing for pressurized twins.
 
Meh,

For that kind of coin I would work it out with a charter company when I need the airplane. Get someone else to pay the maintenance costs, plus you can get to fly different airplanes as well.
 
olasek said:
Btw, if you fly this beast 300 hrs a year which is quite normal use of aircraft to justify private ownership you would be looking at over $300k in fuel and maintenance cost. Among fixed costs hangar cost alone is about $27k.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

That really puts things in perspective.
 
Serious answer, if you're going to get one, go ahead and get two that way you have a spare when one is down for maintenance.

You're welcome.
 
paflyer said:
Same thing for pressurized twins.
Click to expand...

That was true 7 years ago, but they've relaxed the requirements a lot more. All I need is an IPC in the aircraft once a year. I did end up going to sim training for my initial, but there were companies that would have let me do an IPC. The reason I went with this company (and sim training) was due to the specifics surrounding logistics for this airplane. Specifically, it needed a ferry flight (on a ferry permit) that I could therefore be the only occupant of the aircraft for. It was not practical for me to get someone else to fly it, nor did I want someone else flying it.

I'm not sure if I'd say most people I know with pressurized piston twins are foregoing the sim, but that number is increasing.
 
Regarding the OP, it sure looks like a nice plane. Back when Wayne was around, he said $800k was about the minimum you could expect to pay for a good 200. That one has lower time engines (2000 SMOH) with fresh hot sections, Raisebeck conversion (which provides real performance improvements) and very nice panel, paint, and interior. The only negative I see on it is the higher TTAF, pushing 10k, and the fact that it is "older" at a '79. I have no idea where this one falls within the relative resale value range. It's probably higher than what it's truly worth, but that's how most aircraft are priced.

As noted above, you can expect training requirements and you'll have insurance. But King Airs are nice flying planes. I've spent some time in 1900Ds (just a bigger King Air, more or less) and enjoyed those.

One thing Wayne said about the 200s was that they were an example of a bigger/faster bird costing about the same per mile as the smaller/slower sister (C90). From that perspective, it makes the 200 seem an obvious choice, although it's obviously larger and I'd expect generally worth more than a C90 with higher other costs.

One thing to consider with King Airs is the 6 year gear inspection. I don't know the specifics on that, but for low utilization aircraft it can add a lot to the total hourly cost.

What's the mission?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That was true 7 years ago, but they've relaxed the requirements a lot more. All I need is an IPC in the aircraft once a year. I did end up going to sim training for my initial, but there were companies that would have let me do an IPC. The reason I went with this company (and sim training) was due to the specifics surrounding logistics for this airplane. Specifically, it needed a ferry flight (on a ferry permit) that I could therefore be the only occupant of the aircraft for. It was not practical for me to get someone else to fly it, nor did I want someone else flying it.

I'm not sure if I'd say most people I know with pressurized piston twins are foregoing the sim, but that number is increasing.
Click to expand...
Probably depends on your own history. If you're a low time twin guy you won't get insurance without a formal training program and as much as 50 hours with a mentor.
 
paflyer said:
Probably depends on your own history. If you're a low time twin guy you won't get insurance without a formal training program and as much as 50 hours with a mentor.
Click to expand...

History absolutely plays a role in it. In my case, I started flying the 414 with roughly 2,000 multi and 2,400 total, including a few hundred cabin class and 50 in turboprop twins (which were pressurized). I fell right into their lowest or second lowest risk category with 0 time in type, and the insurance rates were only a little higher than the 310.

If you're coming in with 500 total time and a fresh multi ticket (which plenty of people are in the cabin class piston twin world) then the first year you'll need to get training, but I'm still seeing people get into these planes without the 50 dual requirement that was common in the 2010 timeframe. 25 of dual or less is more typical, and after the first year they can usually get away with just an IPC. Premiums are higher due to the higher risk category they end up in.

By doing upgrades that aren't aggressive from an experience perspective, the insurance rates have stayed low. In fact, the insurance on the 414 now is still about 33% lower than the first year insurance on the Aztec when I bought that in 2009, and the 414 has 4x the hull value!
 
ronnieh said:
Recurrent training will be once a year. Initial will be in the $7K range then around $5K for subsequent training..
Click to expand...
Annual crew training is listed at $27,720, so the user Anymouse above was close, twice a year mandated training.
 
MauleSkinner said:
There are also STCs to bump the weight on the 200, which will then require a type rating.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware of that, but looked it up - you're correct, the STC says that it then requires a type rating and puts the aircraft into the "commuter" category.

That's pretty interesting to me that they can do that. What's also interesting is how that applies in this case, but not in the similar case of the Cessna 340. Its original certificated max gross weight was 5990 lbs, just under the Class III aircraft limit. That makes it eligible for avionics upgrades that are less expensive based on its Class II status. If a 340 receives a RAM upgrade that pushes its max gross weight to over 6,000 lbs, that does not affect its status as a Class III aircraft because the max certificated aircraft weight is still under 6k.

In the case of this STC, they're doing something that's fundamentally similar, but I suppose as with anything, the heavier you get the more picky the FAA gets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top