Page 11 - OCT 19 TNT

landing gear trunnion, and the 200 has dual axles on each main landing gear trunnion. While both are rugged and strong, if a 200 pops a tube/tire on land- ing, there is the ability to taxi off the runway to a maintenance hangar for repairs. If the 90 pops a tire, that’s where that airplane will sit until a maintenance provider can clean up the mess. There’s also a significant speed dif- ference. A stock C90 will cruise around 225 KTAS at the high teens/low 20s, but the 200 will cruise about 275 KTAS at its normal cruising altitude of the upper 20s. Fifty knots in cruise is a big deal. I usually preach how the difference in cruise speed is not a big deal, but when it is nearly a 20 percent increase in speed, I make an exception. Another serious purchase consider- ation: the footprint. The King Air 200 is taller and has a wider wingspan than the 90. On my airport, there are several hangars that will easily handle a 90, yet could not fit a 200. So, make sure that you’ve got the hangar space available to hold the bigger airplane. The bigger footprint also means that ramp fees at away-from-home airports will be more. Bottom line: A 200 will cost more to store when not f lying. Both the 200 and the 90 are airplanes that should not sit outside subjected to the elements. Hangaring is a necessity. Having illustrated some of the differ- ences, there are some striking similari- ties. The “feel” of the cockpit is about the same in both airplanes. While the 200 does have a bigger cockpit, the space for the pilot is about the same, and there are many exactly-the-same parts such as the seats, rudder pedals, windscreen size and yokes. The pilot experience in both airplanes is very good, with plenty of room for the tall/wide pilot, the short/ thin pilot, and everyone in between. Another similarity is the range and fuel burn for a mission. Both air- planes will take six people about 1,200 nm on a full load of fuel. The 90 will burn slightly less fuel overall, but not by a significant margin. The 200 will burn more fuel per hour, but it is go- ing faster, flying higher and will arrive earlier – allowing the fuel burn for most missions to be reasonably close. The training requirements are identi- cal (neither need a type rating), and the maintenance requirements and costs are nearly identical. Both are upgrade- able with a plethora of now-available STC upgrades on the market, both have support from the factory, and both are reasonably easy airplanes to fly. What is more, any King Air will have the all-important belted lavatory. I’ve found the toilet on the 90 and 200 to be a real necessity for true passenger comfort. Although the toilet portion of the lavatory seat is rarely used, it is reas- suring to know it is available. While the seat forces the occupant to sit sidesaddle, there’s plenty of legroom and comfort if you can get past the stigma associated with its location. Which one will cost more to acquire and operate? The cost of a C90 born in 1980 with mid-time engines, decent avionics and acceptable aesthetics will cost about $500,000. The same year model 200 will cost about $750,000 ($250,000 more). But, I contend that a 200 and a 90 can be operated for about the same cost per mile, which is the real Ocean Reef Club October 2019 / TWIN & TURBINE • 9