C90 question

[Dust Devil]

I'm considering a couple different aircraft types for a new survey job. I'm thinking of going turbine to ease the pressure on fuel availability and I like two fans. What I'm wondering is how feasible is it to operate a C90 between 160 to 200 kts for an extended period of time? And what type of fuel burn would one expect at those lower power settings? Could we be looking at endurances of 7 hours? Are there options for adding long range fuel tanks for the C90?

[xsbank]

7 hours of survey?? OMFG. You'd need a butt transplant not to mention a catheter to fly survey that long.

[Justwannaflyfloats]

It's no C90, but my uncle works for Northwest Geomatics and they recently picked up a F406 from France and they usually stay up for 7 hours at a time at 7-9000ft. Huge fuel capacity, something like 263+ Gals per side. Plus it's got the twin turbines.

[jetflightinstructor]

the C90 is the slowest of the king airs. 160-200 (GS?) kts is not a slow speed for the 90. Low power setting? not exactly. you have to give us the altitude to be able to speak about the fuel burn. 20000 or 8000 feet that s not the same.

concerning the speed, the king air 200 and above are doing good. the 90 and 100 are really slow.
The C90 and 200 (or 350) are 2 different world. The first one is a kind of powerfull navajo, the other one is one of the fastest turboprop (not to compare with the avanti of course, the Avanti has a jet speed), able to cruise at more than 30000 feet.

The best altitude for a king air is around 22000-26000 feet for the fuel burn. At higher altitude the fuel flow still decrease, but the ITT increase.

[rigpiggy]

As much as I dislike garrett's they tend to burn about #100/side less than the pratts for a given power setting. a B100 would probably give you the best of both worlds.

[middle marker]

You mght want to think about a Turbo Commander.
Plus side - It has fuel efficient Garrets and a clean floor that you can punch holes in to your hearts content.
I operated two Taurus King Airs in Southeast Asia for a number of years doing airbourn remote sensing. Great high altitude machines but gas guzzlers low level.
The Cheyenne ll is used and I have run them for a couple of years at low level. Plus side, no wing bolt issues at low level, a strong and reliable aircraft. If operated in dust and gravel, keep the landing gear traveling parts very clean. Negative side props are very close to the ground so pilot technique on power application needs addressing.
On a note, if you plan to run low level single pilot for more that 4 hours at a streach then you may concider the saftey issues involved.
My two cents.

[Dust Devil]

the C90 is the slowest of the king airs. 160-200 (GS?) kts is not a slow speed for the 90. Low power setting? not exactly. you have to give us the altitude to be able to speak about the fuel burn. 20000 or 8000 feet that s not the same.

Anywhere from 3000 to 16000 ASL. Generally we are 3000 AGL

I guess I'm more interested in fuel burn at say 3000 feet ASL then it should generally decrease from there.

[Dust Devil]

As much as I dislike garrett's they tend to burn about #100/side less than the pratts for a given power setting. a B100 would probably give you the best of both worlds.

A 100 might be overkill for what we need. I like the idea of a commander though

[Tiny Voices]

Check out the E90. Carries more fuel. Similar fuel quantity and system to the A100 i believe. Also has the -28 engines.

[DHC3Rwannafly]

Since no one has given you actual numbers yet, I'll share a few with you for the E90. Fuel burn at full power at 3000' we burn around 340lbs/hr per side and in no wind ground 230kts. This is with the stock PT6A-28 550 SHP. Depending on season, this isnt max torque. Our total fuel capoacity is jhsut under 500 gallons, not sure about other range tank options. At 15,000 feet, fuel burn is down to about 280lbs a side. Hope this helps.

[Dust Devil]

, I'll share a few with you for the E90. Fuel burn at full power at 3000' we burn around 340lbs/hr per side and in no wind ground 230kts. This is with the stock PT6A-28 550 SHP. Depending on season, this isnt max torque. Our total fuel capoacity is jhsut under 500 gallons, not sure about other range tank options. At 15,000 feet, fuel burn is down to about 280lbs a side. Hope this helps.

any guess on fuel burn with the power back so your around 170 kts? 230 is way too quick for us.

Since no one has given you actual numbers yet

Thanks for picking up on that

[J31]

Not many people loiter around at low altitude with turbines . My guess would be in the 200 lbs per hour per side at 3000 ft and less at 15000. I use to plan 450 lbs per hour training behind the PT6A-20/27/28 in various aircraft mind you that included takeoff’s and go-around’s with speeds under 200 kts. It has be a few years now and the memory fades…..so ballpark figures . Funny….beta backup, electric low pitch stops, high and low pressure pumps still rattle around in the head after so many years

You might talk to Buffalo Airways as they use a Beech A90 bird dog for the fire tankers.

[J31]

If you want fuel misers then consider Garrett powered aircraft like the MU2, Beech B100, Turbo Commanders, Metro, etc. In fact a Metro lightly loaded, powered back I would suggest 7 hour plus range.

[KAG]

We did survey flying in a BE20 at speeds as slow as 125 KTS and 1000' AGL. 5 hours was all you would get with a safe amount to get you home. I don't think the C90 can do what a B200 can do as far as endurance for low level survey, even though it has smaller engines, it just doesnt have the fuel capacity for what you need.
Sounds like and old 200 would be the ticket. There we even a few made from Beech with camera ports made into em, good luck finding one though.

[Dust Devil]

Thanks for the info guys. I think I'm going to stick to hos. Apart from struggles with fuel availability they are doing everything I need for now. Maybe in a year or two I'll go toward something like a kodiak. Just don't have the cash for one of those at the moment.

[Louis]

Are there any STCs out there to put something a smaller turbine (like an Allison at approx 400 shp) or (if they ever get their stuff back together) a Thielert Centurion 4 on a Navajo? Maybe that could be an idea?

If you're looking at something like a Kodiak, would a Caravan be an option as well? Why not?

Goodbye,

Louis

[J31]

You could look at a turbine Navajo T1040. http://home.global.co.za/~ootbas/OOTBAS/aT1040.htm