Hey everyone!

I know we all love our Beech's, they are great well built machines, however; I've come to think as flexible as they have been all this time, some new inventions have reached their segment and pricepoint.

I pilot a C90B with all of the toys from the Blackhawks, G1K, Aerokits and MT 5 bladed props, the owners love it and we all try to give it all the love we can. Typicall mission is a local 35 minute flight in central america. We take off fully loaded with passengers and the weekender bags plus cooler out of a 5000ft elev, 9800 ft long runway. Then climb to 13-15000 ft for a short cruise over the mountains and then we can do a shallow 2 degree descent to a 3200 runway. Fuel is not available so we carry our fuel for the return home leg plus the reserves.

Needles to say, the 90 does this like a champ, sometimes 3 times a day when it's a holliday or special ocassions. And once or twice a month we do long flights where we need to climb to the flight levels and yes, it gets to the 250 KTAS promissed by all the stc brands.

However, on the long flights, or when carrying more fuel due to weather or if the station won't have fuel available, we do have to sacrifice some seats.

This has led me to think; With the Kodiak 900 or PC12 available, is it wise to trade the second engine; but fill all of the seats? difference in our 90% typicall mission would be 5 minutes if not less, we would have almost 40% less fuel burn per flight. Maintenance cost would be way less, considering fixed gear would make things easier even for insurance.

Kodiak 900 reviews look promising, all of the numbers make sense, it is worth almost the same new as a 90 with our specs. To me as a pilot (I wouldn't know about the owning price and thoughts) it makes perfect sense, but it lacks one engine. So to owners who prioritize safety above all, it is a straight no since they have gotten used to the redundancy of a multi. Plus in our latitudes it is prohibited to fly at night on single engines. Again our typicall missions are daylight only.

What do you guys think? Should I put it on paper and show it to the owners? This in the name of safety. I'm trying to keep the fun in the flights without making them leave friends or bags in the hangar because of weight and save them some money in fuel savings and maintenance or hour of operation.

Pressurization and AC. Big, big comfort items for the 90.

Yes, you can do the same flight in the Kodiak fine, but will you be able to climb high enough and not supply PAX with O2? Will you be wishing you were in the Flight Levels (FL220-230) to clear weather?

Kodiak is a good plane, but consider PAX comfort…

Sounds like the old single versus twin debate.

Yes, a twin can save you in case of engine failure if you respect its limitations and maintain your proficiency. If not, it can kill you real quick.

Unless you can really use the off-runway/STOL capabilities of the Kodiak, I think the comfort of other options (Pressurization, noise, HVAC possibly) vastly outweighs the benefits of the Kodiak. If the owners want to land in the outback, the Kodiak can't be beat for its versatility, but if that's not a valuable feature, I think it falls short.

The PC-12 is a fantastic machine, though you pay for it in capital cost, which also drives higher property tax and insurance costs. If you compare the fatality rates of the King Air Series and the Pilatus and you could isolate pro pilots, the PC-12 may have the better safety record. And I think the fact that Textron hasn't made any significant improvements to the Kingair in ages, and is bending metal to certify the Denali, tells you that they think the future is more likely in single engine.

You could also consider a Piaggio. A twin, faster than either, much more quiet inside, better pressurization, better anti-icing (hot wings), crazy efficient, plus the cabin size of a midsize jet (a hair larger than the Lear 60). Lots of info about Piaggios on BT if you want to look.

Good luck!
Ed

You’re the pilot, right? In general the pay for King Air pilots is higher and it’s more selective (fewer people can replace you) compared to an unpressurized single. If you move to a Kodiak will the owner decide some 500 hour kid pilot can do your job for less?

your passengers are accustomed to pressurization on your climb to to 15K. Yes a kodiak or caravan is the perfect answer if you are making that trip with cargo. But you have people, and your people have pre-conceived expectations.

You have blackhawks and you’re only hitting 250KTAS?

At what altitude? I have -21 engines and I cruise at 243KTAS 18-20k feet

"Needles to say, the 90 does this like a champ, sometimes 3 times a day when it's a holliday or special ocassions. And once or twice a month we do long flights where we need to climb to the flight levels and yes, it gets to the 250 KTAS promissed by all the stc brands.

However, on the long flights, or when carrying more fuel due to weather or if the station won't have fuel available, we do have to sacrifice some seats."

Opinion worth what you paid....

If you are not keeping the King Air, then the loss of 80-100kts cruise and bumping around at lower altitudes might not be that much fun on longer trips. My wife and I both want a short body Caravan, but hard to stomach the loss of 40kts cruise speed regardless of the tradeoff.

Not sure how many Kodiaks are in South America, so I would want to consider service and parts on that airframe before I purchased that over a Caravan.

I would compare the mission between a 90 and a 200 with the Blackhawk engine conversion and consider moving to a bigger KA before moving my owners to a slower single.

I have a Kodiak 100 series 3
I don’t know that much about KA 90 but…….
Kodiak has no timed maintenance on any item except annual, normal lube, turbine tbo.
Kodiak with belly (standard in 900) can carry a LOT of weight.
Kodiak 900 has 10 seats
Kodiak 900 is single engine (maintenance and fuel)
Kodiak is extra comfortable (seats and space)
Very comfortable step up from bonanza or baron type
Lower Insurance cost (fixed gear)

Downside: lack of pressurization, speed, 900 is big (hangar)
Even if it was pressurized it wasn’t designed to perform up high. Wrong wing design and turbine setup.

Upside: payload, operating cost, safety margin, 900 is a beast, most comfortable plane I have ever flown in, front seat or passenger. Insurance

I would have the Blackhawk E90 with gross weight increase. With all cabin partitions removed I have just under 4000lbs useful load and it holds 470 gallons if needed. Garmin G600 and two 750s.

Slower and less cabin diff than the C90B but the stock inlets are less FOD prone and it still can cruise at FL240 if needed. Useful load and fuel capacity is the difference.

The Avanti is so fast that they will have you slow for the Citation traffic in front of you! I loved my time in the back (and once up front) in the Avanti. I am 6'2" and both the Avanti and the F90 were nice. I have been up front and in the back of the Pilatypus and really enjoyed how comfortable it was for a SETP.

The PC-12 is expensive but it seems to hold its value pretty well and you are only paying engine program time 1x per hour. The avionics are generally newer than the older C90s converted. You are also paying a premium for that newer aircraft.

The Kodiak is great but the mission profile is similar to a Caravan. MAF uses them and they are great aircraft. Occasionally MAF has one at Oshkosh. However, like the Caravan, they are not pressurized and that's been covered.