King Air C-90

Sorry Henning, I should have posted make and model. I did not think that important I was just giving an example that I hoped would help some. That set of numbers is for a Cheyenne IIIA. Ain't no 200 going to do that. :rofl: Settle down I am just kidding, sort of!
Yes, once you temp out, speed is SOMEWHAT constant. Once you are temped out power will go down as you go up. However the thinner air ALMOST compensates for it. In short, very general terms, altiude is used to get fuel flows down without giving up much speed.
I should have given you true airspeed for each altitude. Those times take into consideration the forcast winds and temperature at each altitude. The plane is faster at FL190 than at 280 by at least 10 knots. You had no way of knowing that from what I posted.
To give you an idea of TAS let us assume a standard day (quite cool, makes the IIIA look better:) ) 700 pounds below gross at take off.
TAS at FL180 will be about 295K., useing about 720 punds/hr. Ouch!
At FL280 about 287K.,useing less than 600 pounds/hr. So I give up 8 knots to save at least 120 pounds of fuel. That is a pretty good trade.
Now the plane itself: 11,200 pounds MTOW. Useful load just over 4000 pounds. In the example a VFR trip could have been made with at least 1700 pounds of people with a tad over 800 pounds in reserve.
I hope I did a little better in this follow up giving you info you were looking for.
EDIT: I forgot you asked for max range. It will hold a little over 3700 pounds of fuel which means about 5 hours with a 1 hour reserve, again depending on altitude.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
I'd love to have 350hp compound supercharged Diesels (or multifuel plug engines)
Click to expand...

I've contemplated GTSIO-520s in the 310 for fun. Certainly, it would make it pretty quick.

However, if your 310 is like the one I fly (which I guess it is), your yellow arc begins at 200 mph (~175 KIAS). In most cases, 300 HP engines at a cruise power setting will get you right up to Vno. I find I end up having to reduce power in the descent on days that are ISA or colder. I also have no problem climbing at 800-1000 fpm at gross at 25"/2500 RPM (keep in mind our 300 HP engines are at 2850 RPM).

The extra power would primarily result in having ridiculous climb rates (never a bad thing, but your passengers probably won't appreciate it), needing to reduce power for descent, and being right up against Vno in most phases of flight. Personally, I wouldn't want to fly above Vno for extended periods of time. You'd basically make the plane into a Cessna version of the 56TC.

The diesels would be nice for obvious reasons, but to be honest, 300 HP would be sufficient. The 350 HP would mostly give you better OEI performance.
 
The calendar is the biggest determinent. Phase inspections (similar to annual inspections), prop and gear inspections, O2 bottle re-cert/replacement and other time/life components are the biggies that occur based on time.

Start/shutdowns don't count as a cycle per se and aren't recorded for MX purposes. IOW, if a shop performs a half dozen starts and shutdowns while rigging an engine and/or prop, none of those are recorded for count purposes.

The definition of a cycle includes a takeoff and landing (and presumably pressurizing and depressurizing the cabin) and is the reason the MX records include "landings" as one of the entries. Even so, many operators don't track landings and MX shops are allowed to simply use 1:1 ratio of hours flown to determine cycle counts.

Hourly counts are important insofar as some engine MX is required. Hot sections are due at ~1,800 hours and can cost $15,000 to $50,000. From that standpoint, the hourly cost isn't much different than a big-bore piston. Engine overhauls are required at 8,000 hours, so the fears based on OWT about turbine expense are poorly understood and (usually) grossly overstated. Aother hourly inspections include compressor washes, borescopes, vibration checks and other stuff that is typically inspected during normal phase inspections.

Only a few significant inspections are triggered by cycles, but they can be expensive. The compressor disk is one such item ($40,000 each IIRC) but most are now rated for 30,000 cycles and are therefore expected to out-live the airplane. A big pressure vessel inspection occurs at 10,000 cycles.

Doggtyred said:
How much of your maintenance cycles are determined by hours and how many by operational cycles (start/shutdown)??
Click to expand...
 
Wayne, if I may, let me interject a couple of oppinions here. The PT6 CAN have a TBO of 8000 hyours if on the MORE program which is an STC. The STC ain't free and the additional inspections required to comply with the STC are not free either. Though I have no first hand knowledge the MORE program is simply kicking the can down the road. Your overhaul WILL cost more at the end of the 8000 hours, if it makes it that far. As an example we had a pair of -61's overhauled a couple of years ago by Standard Aero. These were first run engines with a little less than 4000 since new. As far as I could tell they were running perfect. They had trend monitoring since the last hot section. Our mechanic had opened both hot sections 100 hours earlier for a peak to see if there were any major problem beginning to show up. Everything looked fine and the owner decided to do the engines when they reached 4000 hours which is 400 past TBO. After intense negotiation we got the pair ovehauled for $775K. This is not an OWT. I still maintain if you are going to burn kesosene you need to be able to write checks with lots of zeroes and get over it. JMHO.
 
And the underlying logic for that "if it ain't broke fix it anyway" decision was . . .?


ronnieh said:
Wayne, if I may, let me interject a couple of oppinions here. The PT6 CAN have a TBO of 8000 hyours if on the MORE program which is an STC. The STC ain't free and the additional inspections required to comply with the STC are not free either. Though I have no first hand knowledge the MORE program is simply kicking the can down the road. Your overhaul WILL cost more at the end of the 8000 hours, if it makes it that far. As an example we had a pair of -61's overhauled a couple of years ago by Standard Aero. These were first run engines with a little less than 4000 since new. As far as I could tell they were running perfect. They had trend monitoring since the last hot section. Our mechanic had opened both hot sections 100 hours earlier for a peak to see if there were any major problem beginning to show up. Everything looked fine and the owner decided to do the engines when they reached 4000 hours which is 400 past TBO. After intense negotiation we got the pair ovehauled for $775K. This is not an OWT. I still maintain if you are going to burn kesosene you need to be able to write checks with lots of zeroes and get over it. JMHO.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yes that is true. I have never known anybody to try to run them to 8000 hours without the program. My point was that 3600 and not 8000 is the TBO. We ran ours 400 past TBO. I don't think it would be wise to count on 8000 hours then do a normal overhaul. Also if you have a catastrophic failure P&W is going to shrug their shoulders if you are past TBO. I just maintain that turbines are very expensive and is considerably more expensive on a per hour basis that piston engine. Again JMHO.
Your explanation was very good. Of course some of it is model specific like that high dollar gear inspection for older 200's.
 
The gear inspection and most prop inspections are 6-year items. The base cost is for the inspection and isn't a bank-breaker if the components pass the inspection. Good MX procedures and adherence to periodic lube intervals are essential to minimizing the cost. Dry-weather airplanes seem to escape with the lowest MX cost.

ronnieh said:
Yes that is true. I have never known anybody to try to run them to 8000 hours without the program. My point was that 3600 and not 8000 is the TBO. We ran ours 400 past TBO. I don't think it would be wise to count on 8000 hours then do a normal overhaul. Also if you have a catastrophic failure P&W is going to shrug their shoulders if you are past TBO. I just maintain that turbines are very expensive and is considerably more expensive on a per hour basis that piston engine. Again JMHO.
Your explanation was very good. Of course some of it is model specific like that high dollar gear inspection for older 200's.
Click to expand...
 
The underlying logic: Well the compressor section, FCU's, gearbox was all 24 years old. There are a lot of componets on a turbine that are only touched during overhaul. With his family useing the plane he preferred to not wait until something broke to fix it. A lot of times blades and wheels, burner cans and so on can be repaired if caught before they break. And yes new engines break also. But realy which engine would you trust, a PT6 even with good maintenance with 8000 hours or one that was freshly overhauled by a P&W approved shop, run in on a test cell, installed with another 10 hours before returning to service. Just personal choice. He has the check book thus he gets to make the call.
 
That "golden rule" trump card is usually played in these discussions, as is the "my family travels in the plane, and . . ."

My answer is "just do whatever blows your skirt as long as it doesn't include bitching at me because you plssed away $675,000 (overhaul vs HSI) that you didn't need to spend for another 10 years."

If component life-span was an issue, wouldn't it have been addressed by Pratt's MM?
ronnieh said:
The underlying logic: Well the compressor section, FCU's, gearbox was all 24 years old. There are a lot of componets on a turbine that are only touched during overhaul. With his family useing the plane he preferred to not wait until something broke to fix it. A lot of times blades and wheels, burner cans and so on can be repaired if caught before they break. And yes new engines break also. But realy which engine would you trust, a PT6 even with good maintenance with 8000 hours or one that was freshly overhauled by a P&W approved shop, run in on a test cell, installed with another 10 hours before returning to service. Just personal choice. He has the check book thus he gets to make the call.
Click to expand...
 
Wayne, do you notice PT-6s going to 8000 hours having any noticable decrease in power? The Cheyenne's left engine, which was at 3600, was showing higher N1, lower torque, lower fuel flow, than the right engine. Plane flies about 10-20 kts slower than book, or a friend's identical Cheyenne.

In pistons, power degredation obviously will vary depending on what's worn, and I'd expect the same for turbines. But in pistons I know what wears out (cylinders, rings, valves especially). It turbines I'd figure vane tip to wall clearances, but don't know enough about them.
 
Ted,

Hot section health determines engine performance (for the most part) and HSI inspections are typically mandatory at ~1,00 hours. Did you record ITT"s for both engines? Were they the same? Have calibrations of Torque and Temp gages been verified? Other factors like class of guide vanes can also impact the stream of hot air that moves the power turbine blades.



Ted DuPuis said:
Wayne, do you notice PT-6s going to 8000 hours having any noticable decrease in power? The Cheyenne's left engine, which was at 3600, was showing higher N1, lower torque, lower fuel flow, than the right engine. Plane flies about 10-20 kts slower than book, or a friend's identical Cheyenne.

In pistons, power degredation obviously will vary depending on what's worn, and I'd expect the same for turbines. But in pistons I know what wears out (cylinders, rings, valves especially). It turbines I'd figure vane tip to wall clearances, but don't know enough about them.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Wayne, I am not arguing with you. I am just pointing out there are differfent views. I am not sure $675K was ****ed away. Both of our gear boxes had what appeared to be lightning damage. Also the shaft bearings showed evidence of that. HSI will not pick that up. I am not sure PM is always a waste of money.
Ted, you have to know if the guages are telling the truth as Wayne pointed out. I think trend monitoring is very helpful in answering questions like yours. There are tests that can be done, both ground runs and in the air that can answer some of your questions. It does not cost all that much to just open a hot section and take a look see. What you describe does sound like it COULD be a tired hot section. But, again as wayne said you have to know the information is correct.
Wayne I know you mean 1000 hours but I thought hots on the PT6 was at 1800 hours. That may depend on dash number, not sure.
 
wabower said:
Ted,

Hot section health determines engine performance (for the most part) and HSI inspections are typically mandatory at ~1,00 hours. Did you record ITT"s for both engines? Were they the same? Have calibrations of Torque and Temp gages been verified? Other factors like class of guide vanes can also impact the stream of hot air that moves the power turbine blades.
Click to expand...

That is, of course, the question. ITTs were the same. As I said, N1 was higher on the engine with low torque. Torque gauge was known to not be entirely accurate, but was reading 200 lbs lower than the other side.

The guy who I was flying with said "It's just the gauges, there's nothing wrong with it." But he's been known to say that about a lot of things and, when my gut says he's wrong, it's always been right. My gut said he was wrong, and that there was probably a combination of gauges reading improperly and engines performing improperly. The plane is now in Africa with its new owners, so it's their problem and a moot point. It's more anecdotal than anything in my quest to learn something useful.
 
Local PT-6 guru and longtime P&W employee says compressor hot and fast usually means hot section problem (guide vanes, compressor turbine wheel, duct segments, stator, etc.) Hot and slow is indicative of compressor problems.

From your description it sounds as though you were operating by matching temps. For better diagnostics you should match torgues in order to determine relative fast/slow hot/cold operation of compressor and hot section.

I share your opinion of the smoke being blown by your guy.

Ted DuPuis said:
That is, of course, the question. ITTs were the same. As I said, N1 was higher on the engine with low torque. Torque gauge was known to not be entirely accurate, but was reading 200 lbs lower than the other side.

The guy who I was flying with said "It's just the gauges, there's nothing wrong with it." But he's been known to say that about a lot of things and, when my gut says he's wrong, it's always been right. My gut said he was wrong, and that there was probably a combination of gauges reading improperly and engines performing improperly. The plane is now in Africa with its new owners, so it's their problem and a moot point. It's more anecdotal than anything in my quest to learn something useful.
Click to expand...
 
He's got a good headwind on the way back to TX. At one point Flightaware showed his GS as 128kts at 22k feet. Showing 168kts right now.
 
That makes sense. On these flights, the goal was to get somewhere. Since the guy I was flying with was busy blowing smoke and trying to convince me to buy the plane (which wasn't about to happen for many reasons), meanwhile I was primarily there for the turbine time (and to get where the plane was going), diversions such as actually trying to figure out why the gauges weren't matching up weren't on the agenda for the day. The left engine was about due for a hot section anyway, so that might have fixed that issue - I have no idea if the new owners were intending on doing that. We were operating on matching temps or fuel flows, depending on the flight. The high temp/high N1/low torque engine was also burning less fuel.

When I first bought my Aztec, the same guy blew smoke regarding my fuel flow gauge (which he said needed overhauled since the right side was going past the red line all the way over to the left side on takeoff). I figured nozzles were clogged. Were they ever - two rounds of Hoppes to clean them. And after that, the needles were perfectly aligned. Since then, the nozzles have actually gotten cleaned every 100 hours as they should.

wabower said:
Local PT-6 guru and longtime P&W employee says compressor hot and fast usually means hot section problem (guide vanes, compressor turbine wheel, duct segments, stator, etc.) Hot and slow is indicative of compressor problems.

From your description it sounds as though you were operating by matching temps. For better diagnostics you should match torgues in order to determine relative fast/slow hot/cold operation of compressor and hot section.

I share your opinion of the smoke being blown by your guy.
Click to expand...
 
Hence my reference to the golden rule. Owner always casts the deciding vote. Were lightning strike inspections completed at the time of the event? Airplanes based in the southeast seem to be more likely (empirical evidence) to incur lightning strikes. B-200 #1245 based in Atlanta had strikes on consecutive flights. We bought it later, no evidence of damage when overhauled some years later. Any evidence of chips or other metal on your engines? I wouldn't presume to tell the owner what he could or should do, only that he had a full menu of options prior to pulling the trigger. Nor do I know the in's and out's of the -61 market. For -21, -21 -42 market for engines used on King Airs, many options are avialable for a fraction of the cost of overhauls.

Bottom line, if he's happy I'm happy until and unless the subject arises in the future and I am somehow included in the group that "let me spend all that money on overhauls that weren't necessary.
ronnieh said:
Wayne, I am not arguing with you. I am just pointing out there are differfent views. I am not sure $675K was ****ed away. Both of our gear boxes had what appeared to be lightning damage. Also the shaft bearings showed evidence of that. HSI will not pick that up. I am not sure PM is always a waste of money.
Ted, you have to know if the guages are telling the truth as Wayne pointed out. I think trend monitoring is very helpful in answering questions like yours. There are tests that can be done, both ground runs and in the air that can answer some of your questions. It does not cost all that much to just open a hot section and take a look see. What you describe does sound like it COULD be a tired hot section. But, again as wayne said you have to know the information is correct.
Wayne I know you mean 1000 hours but I thought hots on the PT6 was at 1800 hours. That may depend on dash number, not sure.
Click to expand...
 
Ted, you could also be seeing the failure of one or more temp sensors in the engine, and or calibration and adjustment of the trim probe on the outside of the case. I think the engine must be split (simple half-day job) to test each probe, but well worthwhile if to do so if indicated.
 
I would be surprised if the sensors were all reading correctly, so splitting the engines for calibration would make sense. As I said, part of the theory that something was wrong was the performance being significantly less than a friend's otherwise identical Cheyenne.

Thanks for the education, Wayne. I feel better when I understand things a bit better than the simple black box theory.
 
Wayne, it is obvious I hit a touchy spot and that was not my intent. There was no log book indication of a strike. This led to quite a discussion with Standard. The -61 engine up until just rescently when I think Black Hawk started useing them in a conversion fit nothing but a IIIA. Our options were limited in that we could not rent engines. My only point was that there are different ways to approach these problems. Yes, some operators run to failure. It works for some. I had a long conversation with an ag operator that thought we were crazy. He made some good points. During the off season he had the hots pulled apart by a local and everything repaired or replaced if needed so that they were pretty sure it would make another season. If it broke during a season they had two planes. I suspect he was operating a PT6 for about half what we were. The only problem is that my owner would not put up with the down time. Many, many commercial operators run to failure and the MORE program allows commercial operators to do that. Run them till they puke and go out on the market buy two more low or mid time and do it again. That is a business model that works for many. I think that is less of an option for the individual like my owner that flys little maybe 100 hours a year but wants the plane ready if he wants to go somewhere and does not want to be broke down away from home. For that privalege he spends big money. It is just another point of view and again I did not mean to ruffle any feathers.
Ronnie
 
wabower said:
Ted,

Hot section health determines engine performance (for the most part) and HSI inspections are typically mandatory at ~1,00 hours. Did you record ITT"s for both engines? Were they the same? Have calibrations of Torque and Temp gages been verified? Other factors like class of guide vanes can also impact the stream of hot air that moves the power turbine blades.
Click to expand...

This is a good 10 year item regardless the plane.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That is, of course, the question. ITTs were the same. As I said, N1 was higher on the engine with low torque. Torque gauge was known to not be entirely accurate, but was reading 200 lbs lower than the other side.
Click to expand...

N1 is compressor RPM or 'free turbine' PTO disc RPM? If you have known instrumentation issues, take this opportunity to square them away. "Boss, we gotta figure this out and to do that we need known accurate information. It's time to calibrate the instrumentation."
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
N1 is compressor RPM or 'free turbine' PTO disc RPM?
Click to expand...

N1 is compressor RPM measured in %. The free turbine RPM is measured as prop RPM in actual RPM. This is on the Cheyenne II.

The Commander only has an N1 (measured in %), since it's a single-shaft turbine.
 
Ronnie,

It would only be touchy to me if I had written the check for $800k. The good news is that whoever did it can now breathe easier knowing he has 36 years at 100 hrs/yr before the next overhaul.



ronnieh said:
Wayne, it is obvious I hit a touchy spot and that was not my intent. There was no log book indication of a strike. This led to quite a discussion with Standard. The -61 engine up until just rescently when I think Black Hawk started useing them in a conversion fit nothing but a IIIA. Our options were limited in that we could not rent engines. My only point was that there are different ways to approach these problems. Yes, some operators run to failure. It works for some. I had a long conversation with an ag operator that thought we were crazy. He made some good points. During the off season he had the hots pulled apart by a local and everything repaired or replaced if needed so that they were pretty sure it would make another season. If it broke during a season they had two planes. I suspect he was operating a PT6 for about half what we were. The only problem is that my owner would not put up with the down time. Many, many commercial operators run to failure and the MORE program allows commercial operators to do that. Run them till they puke and go out on the market buy two more low or mid time and do it again. That is a business model that works for many. I think that is less of an option for the individual like my owner that flys little maybe 100 hours a year but wants the plane ready if he wants to go somewhere and does not want to be broke down away from home. For that privalege he spends big money. It is just another point of view and again I did not mean to ruffle any feathers.
Ronnie
Click to expand...
 
Why? What are the possible downsides to fixing something that isn't broke? Other than your broken arm if I see you preparing to work on something that isn't a problem or called for in the inspection guide?

Henning said:
This is a good 10 year item regardless the plane.
Click to expand...
 
It took just over five hours to get back. We had over an hour of fuel remaining when we landed. Generally, we were truing 333 to 335; you saw the ground speeds. Thankfully, it was smooth; just a long flight and the winds were only off the nose the first couple hours. As we neared Louisiana, the winds settled down. We were getting the winds off that large system to the north.

We ran C90-1 power settings as provided by Tom Clemments. We temped out on the left engine, but got target torque on the right.

Best,

Dave
 

Attachments

  • IMAG0346 (Large).jpg
    IMAG0346 (Large).jpg
    102.3 KB · Views: 32
What's temp redline on 90-1 chart?

Dave Siciliano said:
It took just over five hours to get back. We had over an hour of fuel remaining when we landed. Generally, we were truing 333 to 335; you saw the ground speeds. Thankfully, it was smooth; just a long flight and the winds were only off the nose the first couple hours. As we neared Louisiana, the winds settled down. We were getting the winds off that large system to the north.

We ran C90-1 power settings as provided by Tom Clemments. We temped out on the left engine, but got target torque on the right.

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
 
I don't have that Wayne. It's why I wanted the performance manuals. All I have is a summary of temps at altitude, and torque. Tom didn't say anything about red line that I recall. I'm really beat, may look back at his book when I get a chance. I got eight hours in the Baron sim and eight in the KA with lots of instruction in between and all the advise from other pilots one could endure (g).
My absolutely best sim sessions ever. Great learning sessions. The problem is, the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know!

Best,

Dave
 
Dang Dave, 333 knots true. That is a honking C90:rolleyes:

Ted, you said free turbine RPM is measured as prop RPM in real RPM???
Turbine RPM is measured in % RPM and is independent of prop RPM in a free turbine. Did I mis read what you wrote?
 
And I've forgotten more . . . forgotten more . . . forgotten more . . . oh, sorry, where was I again?

Dave Siciliano said:
I don't have that Wayne. It's why I wanted the performance manuals. All I have is a summary of temps at altitude, and torque. Tom didn't say anything about red line that I recall. I'm really beat, may look back at his book when I get a chance. I got eight hours in the Baron sim and eight in the KA with lots of instruction in between and all the advise from other pilots one could endure (g).
My absolutely best sim sessions ever. Great learning sessions. The problem is, the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know!

Best,

Dave
Click to expand...
 
ronnieh said:
Dang Dave, 333 knots true. That is a honking C90:rolleyes:

Ted, you said free turbine RPM is measured as prop RPM in real RPM???
Turbine RPM is measured in % RPM and is independent of prop RPM in a free turbine. Did I mis read what you wrote?
Click to expand...

Ronnie: That was running Tom's C90-1 power settings. The left temped out but the right made the target 935 torque. Seems to be running great from what we can tell. Right on the POH settings which are lower.

Best,

Dave
 
Again, Dave 333 Knots true??? Might you mean 233 knots true? Just a little hard to believe that with different tables you are now faster than a 300 KA:dunno::rolleyes:
 
Sorry Dave, just had to poke you a little:lol:
 
ronnieh said:
Ted, you said free turbine RPM is measured as prop RPM in real RPM???
Turbine RPM is measured in % RPM and is independent of prop RPM in a free turbine. Did I mis read what you wrote?
Click to expand...

I'm probably using the nomenclature wrong. So I'll explain it as I understand it, and you can tell me where I'm wrong.

On a PT-6 which has a compressor turbine and a free turbine, the compressor turbine is connected to the compressor section. The free turbine goes to the gearbox and out to the prop.

I'm not sure about how the Cheyenne III you fly is, but on the II that I used to fly, there was N1 and Prop RPM. Prop RPM was measured in the actual Prop RPM, rather than a %.
 
After reading your explanation I think its a terminology problem. When PT-6 guys talk about the various turbines, the term "power turbine" is typically used to describe the one that's attached to the gearbox that turns the prop. I also think your original post had a typo glitch.

Ted DuPuis said:
I'm probably using the nomenclature wrong. So I'll explain it as I understand it, and you can tell me where I'm wrong.

On a PT-6 which has a compressor turbine and a free turbine, the compressor turbine is connected to the compressor section. The free turbine goes to the gearbox and out to the prop.

I'm not sure about how the Cheyenne III you fly is, but on the II that I used to fly, there was N1 and Prop RPM. Prop RPM was measured in the actual Prop RPM, rather than a %.
Click to expand...
 
Trying to get used to this bird and seeing the other side of things.
At Brooksville: BKV an untowered field three events in two visits (I dropped a friend there). On the way in, an RV was flying on the runway opposite the wind. We called in and heard him calling his pattern. We mentioned the strong wind in the opposite direction. He didn't change anything. Folks on the ground came in on unicom and told him the same thing, When went around without telling us (his call was final for runway 27) and we came in on 9, we were on just over a mile final. We were able to go in, but we were sure watching him to see what in the heck he was going to do. Would have been nice to know he planned a low approach and missed or just a go around. He never landed there.

Departing, there was traffic that sounded a bit flustered using a cross runway. We called that we were taxiing and would wait for him to land. He thanked us, but never called landing or clear of the cross runway. We couldn't see him; so, we made three calls when departing and he wasn't there. Would have been nice to let us know.

Flew to Kissimmee and they warned a Cirrus there was a KA on two mile final and asked him to expedite. We called we were slowing. Don't know why they had him expedite, plenty of room.

Back to Brooksville to pick up my friend, called Tampa on the ground for our clearance and departed 27; we made a call on unicom that we were departing on 27 and got no reply. On departure, as after we rotated and I was climbing I saw a CG helo off the departure end and our instructions were to follow runway heading and climb to 2,000. He called departure and said he saw departing traffic and they asked him to turn. He was right at our assigned altitude and ahead, so, I continued my climb. Told Tampa I had him on our climb and had to go up a bit more. Tampa cleared me to 6,000. Don't know why the chopper didn't know about us if he was monitoring departure.

These untowered airports can be a challenge. Things happen much faster now in this plane. Got to have one's head on a swivel.

Best,

Dave
 
Last edited:
Dave Siciliano said:
BKV an untowered field three events in two visits (I dropped a friend there). On the way in, an RV was flying on the runway opposite the wind. We called in and heard him calling his pattern. We mentioned the strong wind in the opposite direction. He didn't change anything. Folks on the ground came in on unicom and told him the same thing, When went around without telling us (his call was final for runway 27) and we came in on 9, we were on just over a mile final. We were able to go in, but we were sure watching him to see what in the heck he was going to do.
Click to expand...
It's always nicer when the other guy is a good citizen.

Just seems to fit a stereotype. :(
 
When at an uncontrolled airport, do you announce 'king air xxx, 7 mile final' ?

Some of the twins and etc at my home field don't announce their type clearly and I know from their tail numbers now they're fast, and when they call 5mi final, they will be at the airport momentarily.

Almost everyone knows what a king air is but other operators might do well to announce their airspeed or something when making a long straight in. Or at least make frequent announcements (7 mi final, 5 mi final, 4 mi final...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top