Cessna 425 vs KingAir C90?

[MountainDude]

Curious if anyone has an opinion on these two.
Wikipedia quotes that C425 "was an $875,000 pressurized twin-turboprop that could fly 15 knots to 20 knots faster than the C90, cruise 250 miles farther with four passengers aboard and burn 15-percent less fuel. It also costs $200,000 less to buy".
Yet, they only sold 236 of them, while Beech sold 3100+ KingAirs.
Why?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Name and reputation?

 

[Greg Bockelman]

@James_Dean ?

 

[GeorgeC]

also @N747JB

 

[Doc Holliday]

King Air predated the C425 by 15 years, and the C90 predated by 9 years. So it was already a well established and 659 KA90's were sold before the Cessna was introduced. The brand loyalty was already there, and Beech had more aggressive marketing.

Also as the C90 evolved it became more efficient and faster.

 

[Ronbonjovi]

6" more headroom in the cabin on the C90. Not sure if that factors in with cabin comfort for the non pilot purchasing.

 

[Ted]

Big reason for the KA popularity is the cabin. Most people who fly in the back of KAs don't fly as far, so the speed matters less, but the comfort matters more. Stable IFR platforms that are easy to fly. Plus solidly built.

The Conquest is faster and more efficient, but not as nice of a cabin. More of an owner-flown plane.

 

[GRG55]

As an owner-owned plane aren't the Garretts in the Cessnas less expensive engines to own and maintain than the PT6s in the Beech KA? @James_Dean may have mentioned something about this when he stepped up from the 310 to the Conquest.

 

[tonycondon]

As an owner-owned plane aren't the Garretts in the Cessnas less expensive engines to own and maintain than the PT6s in the Beech KA? @James_Dean may have mentioned something about this when he stepped up from the 310 to the Conquest.

The 425 has PT-6's. It goes faster because it is smaller and wetted area matters.

 

[Pilawt]

The 425 has PT-6's. It goes faster because it is smaller and wetted area matters.

Yep. The larger C-441 had Garretts.

Cessna's name game was confusing. Originally the C-425 was "Corsair" and the C-441 was "Conquest". Then the C-425 was renamed "Conquest I", and the C-441 became "Conquest II".

 

[GRG55]

The 425 has PT-6's. It goes faster because it is smaller and wetted area matters.

Yep. The larger C-441 had Garretts.

Cessna's name game was confusing. Originally the C-425 was "Corsair" and the C-441 was "Conquest". Then the C-425 was renamed "Conquest I", and the C-441 became "Conquest II".

Yes, I was thinking of the Conquest II. My mistake.
Got a friend that flies a couple of them for corporate clients here.

 

[James_Dean]

I’m in an interesting situation that drove my choice. My local charter op/fbo had 4 425’s that they used for medical air taxi and charter. I had an ideal situation that meant I had knowledgeable Mx, spares on the shelf, and ready pilots for missions when I, or others, needed to sit in the back.

Without that I’m not sure I would have ended up in a conquest. However, now that I’m in one and on a low utilization plan that has had the sids done, I think they’re the cats ass. The baby king airs are less performance with a relatively awful calendar Mx plan. All the rest of the owner flown class of turboprops have pluses and minuses that need to be weighed carefully with your mission and desires.

Utilization is the key. I don’t think you can afford to run a King Air less than 300+ hours/yr.

MU2’s, Conquests,Commanders, etc can.

 

[denverpilot]

I’m in an interesting situation that drove my choice. My local charter op/fbo had 4 425’s that they used for medical air taxi and charter. I had an ideal situation that meant I had knowledgeable Mx, spares on the shelf, and ready pilots for missions when I, or others, needed to sit in the back.

It’s interesting you said that because I was debating saying that when KAs were seemingly everywhere (perhaps they still are), many probably bought knowing that almost every airport had a KA mid to high level expert, meaning they’d already fixed that damn problem before and been bitten by it. Not so much on the Cessna large fleet.

Nowadays the KAs seem to even have faded some and most airports need to know how to fix Gulfstreams of all variants.

It’s the same sentiment as “Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM...”

 

[N1120A]

The Cheyenne, especially the 400, MU2 and Conquest were all superior to the King Air - in some cases far superior. Sadly, ubiquity won over superiority.

It’s interesting you said that because I was debating saying that when KAs were seemingly everywhere (perhaps they still are), many probably bought knowing that almost every airport had a KA mid to high level expert, meaning they’d already fixed that damn problem before and been bitten by it. Not so much on the Cessna large fleet.

Nowadays the KAs seem to even have faded some and most airports need to know how to fix Gulfstreams of all variants.

It’s the same sentiment as “Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM...”

Textron bought Beechcraft almost exclusively for the King Air, killing superior products to their own like the Premier and Hawker. They are still big sellers, along with the Caravan.

 

[Doc Holliday]

The Cheyenne, especially the 400, MU2 and Conquest were all superior to the King Air - in some cases far superior. Sadly, ubiquity won over superiority.

Textron bought Beechcraft almost exclusively for the King Air, killing superior products to their own like the Premier and Hawker. They are still big sellers, along with the Caravan.

Most turboprops are purchased by owners who employ someone else to pilot the aircraft. With that said, this is where the KA was superior, in comfort for the passengers. The Cheyenne had essentially a Navajo cabin, the Conquest 1 was essentially a C421 with turbines, and the MU2 had a tight cabin.

The C90 KA has evolved over time. The old A and B, and early C's were dogs on the performance side, but they offered a nice ride for the passengers.

The C90GTx is vastly different from the old C90.

 

[N747JB]

If you see one on the ramp, the vast majority of King Airs have the owner sitting in the back, Conquests are more likely owner flown. I’ve had both versions of Conquests, they are both good airplanes, the 441 is very fast, 300 knots and very efficient especially up high. My 425 is a solid 255 knot airplane at 22-23,000 on 68 GPH. I looked at a KA many years ago, but I didn’t like climbing over the pedestal to get in the left seat. I find the Cessnas more comfortable in the front and the KA’s more so in the back. The calendar items are pretty costly on the KA, they need to fly a lot of hours to spread that cost out. Neither are cheap, but I think you could operate a 425 for a good bit less per mile if it fits your mission, I fly mostly in the southeast, but it’s fine on trips out west.