King Air 300: Stock Versus Blackhawk

I’ll confess – my favorite airplane is the King Air 300. 

The KA300 is the predecessor to the King Air 350, the supposed improved version. The differences between the two boil down to a stretched fuselage and an additional cabin-class seating area. Otherwise, the differences are slight. But, that slightly longer fuselage does incur a penalty in parasite drag and subsequent speed, so the true speedster of the King Air world is the 300. That is one of the core reasons it is loved by the market – it’s the fastest.

More Horses

We manage and fly N30FE, a 1988 stock King Air 300, and we love it. The airplane has cabin noise canceling (one of the sweetest upgrades ever) and a partial panel upgrade with Garmin 750s and all the associated digital Garmin goodies. It doesn’t have wing lockers, but that’ll be the next upgrade considered. It is a great airplane with impressive performance.

So, how do you further improve upon the near-perfect King Air 300? The answer is more horses. There’s no substitute for horsepower, right? 

Fortunately, that’s the cornerstone of thinking at Blackhawk Aerospace based in Texas. Blackhawk figured out how to bolt bigger engines on the King Air 300 with its XP67A conversion, and guess who happened to buy the very first one – another client of mine. So, we now have an inside look of both a stock King Air 300 and a Blackhawk-upgraded King Air 300.

There are plenty of King Air 350s with the Blackhawk XP67A conversion, but N777XP was the first KA300 to receive the upgrade to the PT6-67. And I’d say N777XP has to be the fastest, best climbing King Air on the planet.

Comparing the Two

I fly both N30FE and N777XP frequently, and as such, can probably give the most accurate testimony about the differences between the two. I’ll give you the bottom line forward: Both are super airplanes that fit a particular mission profile. 

N30FE is the factory-original King Air 300. We fly it about 120 hours per year for owners who use the airplane for business, family trips and travel to their vacation home. Most trips are under two hours in length, and it performs for us with an over 99 percent mission readiness rate. Our payload is “normal” – usually five to seven persons on board, each bringing a couple bags. I can’t remember the last time I worried about weight and balance. It is a true “load up the people and bags and have the line guy top it off” sort of airplane. And there is plenty of excess payload to tanker additional fuel if we plan to land at an airport with egregious fuel prices.

Our climb rate at an average weight and density altitude is 2,000 fpm after lifting off the runway, whittling down to about 1,000 fpm as it levels off at FL280. N30FE is not an RVSM airplane, and we don’t yet see the need to go into RVSM airspace for our mission needs. As most trips are less than two hours, the cost/value ratio translates to us not needing the flight levels starting with a “3.”

We routinely flight plan for 290 KTAS. I keep accurate, leg-specific cruise data in all of our managed aircraft, and 290 KTAS is the average of all flights in the last five years. We’ve seen a few flights where we reached 305 KTAS but only when the temperature and altitude were optimal. We could push the power more, but we decided a long time ago to cruise at a lower power setting to minimize unscheduled maintenance from an engine run too hard. The power is set at a slightly low 775 degrees ITT regardless of the altitude selected. This provides an average fuel flow of 335 pounds per hour for each engine. So, a stock King Air 300 is no slouch and will flat-out perform.

N777XP (the Blackhawk version) is like N30FE in terms of bolt-on items. It has a Garmin panel (Dual 750s) and no wing lockers, but it does not have cabin noise canceling. The owners of N777XP have a few shorter flights, but their primary missions are longer, usually more than three hours of flight time. This is where the extra horses really help.

We flight plan for 330 KTAS in N777XP and are never disappointed. In fact, our first 250 hours of flight time in this airplane (with meticulous recordkeeping) shows an average TAS of 333 KTAS at FL280. It burns 404 pounds per hour on average each side to produce that performance, which is not top-end. Again, we could push the power lever forward more, but we choose a lesser setting to keep maintenance costs lower. And the cruise performance is only the beginning. The best part about the extra horses is the climb. 

With full-fuel, six passengers plus bags, and standard air density, we routinely see climbs greater than 3,500 fpm at 160 KIAS. We usually climb at 170+ IAS to keep the pitch angle from going over 10 degrees, which passengers think is more comfortable. So, a climb to the flight levels is super quick, even jet-like. We rotate off the runway with a 3,500 fpm climb rate, and that dwindles down to 1,800 fpm when leveling off at FL280. Simply put, climb performance is never a question with the Blackhawk XP67A.

Other Considerations

In case you missed it a few paragraphs ago, the Blackhawk XP67A conversion burns more fuel – significantly more fuel. To go from 335 pounds per hour to 405 pounds per hour is a 21 percent increase. For that penalty, the airplane gains 43 KTAS (333 KTAS compared to 290 KTAS), a 15 percent increase in speed. Is it worth it? For some, yes. For some, no. I think the greatest consideration is the length of the average trip. If you’ve got a long way to go, a 43-knot increase in speed is significant. If you are flying shorter trips, then the increase in speed is not worth the cost. We fly from southeast Texas to northern Colorado frequently and, for that trip, the Blackhawk 300 is easily our favorite airplane to fly. We also fly from Texas to southeast Florida, and the Blackhawk XP67A will beat the stock 300 by more than 45 minutes each leg. 

So, if you’ve got a long way to go, the fuel burn on the overall trip is about the same. The Blackhawk 300 burns more per hour, but it operates for fewer hours, making the fuel burn a net-neutral consideration on long legs. We fly the stock N30FE on many shorter flights, often less than an hour in length. On those flights, the Blackhawk 300 would not make a lot of sense as it would only save a few minutes on each leg. In my opinion, there’s little need to buy a Blackhawk XP67A conversion unless the airplane is RVSM capable. With the extra horses to get up to altitude, the Blackhawk 300 gets to RVSM altitudes easily then cruises fast. 

Aside from the extra horsepower, there are a few other considerations that are different. The Blackhawk engines start more slowly. During the start sequence, the secondary fuel is slightly delayed. If you are comfortable starting a PT6, the delay will not trouble you, but it will be noticeable. I’ve started all the PT6 variants, and I’ve never seen anything near a hot start in the -60 or the -67. Both have lots of margin when contrasted to PT6 engine variants in other aircraft installations. 

On landing, the stock 300 propellers will move to the low pitch stops when the nose wheel touches down. I love this aspect of the stock 300 as it makes me look really good as a pilot. The low pitch stop setting applies just a little reverse thrust, which is ideal on a normal landing. This feature is eliminated on the Blackhawk KA300, so the pilot has to lift the power levers over the gate and into reverse/beta (if desired). All Blackhawk XP67As will have five-blade props, which makes for great ramp appeal. I’m lukewarm to the five-blade prop on some single-engine installations due to lower nose clearance issues, but in the multi-engine King Air, they’re fantastic. 

What about one engine inoperative performance? Even without looking at the performance charts you already know the Blackhawk XP67A has spectacular OEI performance. Heck, it’ll out-climb in OEI operation most of the other King Air models with both engines operational. I know the chances of losing a PT6 engine are remote, but if the worst happens, you’ll be happy to have the most available excess thrust on the good engine.

The Right Buyer

To me, the best reason to buy a Blackhawk XP67A is speed. If you are an early adopter or an owner that wants the best and fastest, you want a Blackhawk XP67A. There’s nothing like it in the King Air world. But, don’t let my enthusiasm for the Blackhawk XP67A cast any shadow of doubt about my appreciation for the stock King Air 300. 

If truth be told, N30FE is probably my favorite airplane ever. It is rugged, bulletproof, and just a pleasure to fly. Every time I see the schedule pairs me with N30FE, I’ve got a smile on my face. It may not attract a ramp crowd like N777XP, but it does everything well. The owner of N30FE has no desire to upgrade and loves the performance of the stock 300. Plus, N30FE doesn’t come with the additional price tag that the Blackhawk XP67A conversion costs. A Blackhawk XP67A conversion will cost $1.6 million (minus the value of exchange engines), so the extra ponies do require additional upfront cash. If you’ve got engines that are near TBO, then the Blackhawk conversion could be a wise choice.

Remember, a Blackhawk KA300 will fly the same trips faster, so it will put fewer hours on the airplane and subsequently cost less to fly a particular trip. The explanation here requires some intricate math or an elaborate spreadsheet, but the numbers are legitimate. If you consider the 10-year ownership of a Blackhawk XP67A converted 300 against a stock 300, the overall costs might be less due to the fewer hours flown. Plus, you get the added benefit of higher speeds, better climb and better OEI performance. 

One other buyer might be interested in the Blackhawk XP67A – the buyer looking to buy a jet. At the price point of the Blackhawk engines, some jets could contrast nicely. Usually, the buyer of a jet wants speed, but most of the “affordable” jets come with a small tube, less-than-adequate baggage space, and they don’t operate from shorter runways with aplomb. With the Blackhawk XP67A, you get near jet climb and cruise performance along with a big cabin, a huge useful load and a lot less cost. 

So, which do you choose? If you have a long way to go and have a larger purchase budget, the Blackhawk 300 is probably the best answer. If you fly shorter trips and want the additional load carrying capability of the 300 compared to the 200, then the stock 300 is probably the best airplane for your needs. Me? I’ll gladly fly either. I love them both. One thing is for sure – you simply cannot go wrong with a King Air 300 airframe regardless of which engine is bolted on the front.