Flying the B200

[Kyprianos Biris 12]

Is there somewhere some reference of how real pilots fly the B200 ?

I am not looking for the usual limitations in pilot manuals etc. but actual procedures in ballpark numbers.

 

For example, what are the RPM / Fuel settings on parked and taxi phases.

On take off I assume you go to full power, confirm ?

On a regular cruise what are the "usual" settings ?

On a regular cruise if the flight is not too short what is the usual altitude flown on an average weight ?

On a descent what is the sequence of power adjustments in relation to speed etc.

Approach/landing sequence of events ? (power, gear, flaps, speed)

 

Apart from flightsimming I am a PPL ME with IFR but have no experience on turboprops.

 

 

[KenG 492]

Different operators have variances in their operations. It also depends on how your B200 is equipped. There are -41 engines as well as B200s modified with -42, -52 and -61 engines. Then there is the Raisbeck EPIC Platinum mod that changes numbers.

 

Looks like Carenado is trying to model a -42 equipped aircraft with BLR winglets on a Collins EFIS 84/85 flightdeck modified with a GNS530. I guess that is the airplane they had access to when building this version.

 

As for ramp/taxi torque/fuel flow I really have not spent too much time eyeballing those while taxing. Sure after maintenance checks there are some checklist items that call for recording various parameters but not too much. You use enough power in the B200 to taxi at a brisk walk. Generally in High Idle that means releasing the breaks and adding a little Beta or Ground Fine depending on the props installed. In Low Idle you need to add just a bit of power. Fuel flow at park is about 200pph/engine in high idle and about 150pph/engine (again depending on engine installed.) Planning fuel for STTO is 80 pounds for a small airfield to 150 pounds for a larger airfield with a runup required.

 

Take-off there is a minimum power chart that you refer to. The engine is either going to be limited by the reduction gear box (Torque limited) or thermodynamically limited i.e. TGT or ITT limited. Also on the take-off roll the real airplane builds torque due to the RAM air effect on the engines. Typically, after confirming that minimum torque is available for take-off we teach to set 5% below and during the take-off roll the torque will increase. i.e. if 2230 Torque is the minimum torque for take-ff then we will set 2100. That is the real airplane and not how FSX works. FSX fails miserably in this regard and you tend to lose torque during take-off and have to continue to push power.

 

Regular cruise is a loaded question. What altitude, temperature, ect. Generally we are always trying to get someplace in a B200 so most King Air pilots will set maximum power usually limited by TGT or ITT (depending on how the gauge is labeled.) You can set 800 degrees but many operators will use 770 or even 750 as a company limit to prolong engine life. If range is our goal there are charts in the AFM, however they are often ambitious. Normally in the FL220 to FL260 range setting fuel flow to 250 to 300 pph/engine will get you good range versus fuel. I don't teach any clients that have a Garmin 530 as their avionics and all of them have some sort of FMS. Good FMS will give you fuel information so its a matter of playing with fuel to get the range you are trying to reach.

 

For altitudes I use the old 1,000' per 10 miles, Now I always try to climb above 10,000' where ever possible so unless the flight is significantly short then I am trying to get above that altitude. From 100nms to 220nms for every 10nms I'll add 1,000' (of course abiding by hemispherical cruising altitudes.) i.e. 150nm flight I'd choose 15,000' east or 14,000' west. Once I get into the FLs it depends on my distance traveled, weight of the airplane and most importantly winds. A strong headwind kills performance when you are only getting 270 KTAS. So often its allot of comparison of distance, weights and winds. Higher altitudes provide better specific fuel consumption but at the cost of lower cruise speeds. Calm winds the sweet spot is generally FL220 to FL240. However, the -52 and -61 get much better performance around FL280.

 

Descent, lower the nose and fly the barber pole! Yes this is the AFM procedure. The B200 is slow to climb and slow to cruise we make up our time in the power descent. I only pull power when I get close to a torque limit. Below 10,000' we power back slightly to meet the 250 KIAS limit. :wink:

 

Approaching the IAF we slow to 180 KIAS. IAF to FAF generally slowing to 140 KIAS. 2nm from FAF or glide-slope alive Flaps to Approach, Props - High, Gear - Down. Speed depends on the operator and I have heard of many Vapp speeds. Vref+10 (+1/2 gust spread) seems to work fine. Class B airports I maintain 140KIAS to mix with the Big Iron. Touchdown speed is Vref so from 200' to touchdown it is a gentle deceleration. Now here Carenado has failed miserably, there is no prop drag in their airplane. King Air Prop aerodynamics state that above about 200 ft/lbs of torque the propellers are providing thrust and below 200 ft/lbs the propellers are being driven and windmilling back on the low pitch stops. So you will have to modify the Carenado approach to slow down early or you will get caught trying to go in to shorter fields.

 

I hope I got close to what you are looking for, realize there are lots of slop in this airplane and different operators will have slightly varying procedures based on Beech serial number, modifications done to the airplane and company procedures. The King Air is very forgiving airplane. I have over 15 years in various Kings Airs from C90s, B200s, B300/350s and B190s. I currently teach B200 and B190 for a major flight instruction corporation.

 

My opinion of the Carenado B200. Beautiful exterior model, good systems interactions, terrible flight dynamics. I would guess Carenado took the FDE from the Aeroworx B200 which was known for being terrible. Carenado's 1900 is much better and the best flying King Air I have tried in FSX is AFGs B300. I have not tried Flight1's B200 simply because of the G1000 pit. Now I understand if I am an owner operator then a G1000 is a nice inexpensive option, but a Pro Line 21 is so much better. 

 

 

[RWFeldman 159]

 

 

, but a Pro Line 21 is so much better.

 

Reckon that should be followed with. IMO>

[KenG 492]

Reckon that should be followed with. IMO>

 

I think I started that entire paragraph with "My opinion" so that should go without saying. I ordered the G1000 for B200 13.02 trainer from Garmin. After I try the software I will compare it from a capability versus capability standpoint with a Proline 21 FMS3000 and UNS1 standpoint.

[Robk182 0]

@Keng how are you? a question.... the C90 of carenado its better on FDE that the B00? you have flow C90 and 200 so you know the diference on the FDE

[KenG 492]

@Keng how are you? a question.... the C90 of carenado its better on FDE that the B00? you have flow C90 and 200 so you know the diference on the FDE

 

I have not tried Carenado's C90. Most of my time has been in the larger King Airs with the B300 being the airplane I spent the most time in. I flew the C90s back in '99 and haven't flown them since.

[BeachAV8R 9]

KenG gives great answers for all of that stuff - spot on.

 

I've been flying King Airs (real life) for almost 20 years now. Straight 200s, B200s, and B300s. I was one of the consulting pilots on the Aeroworx B200 (Chris Frishmuth). I've not tried out Carenado's B200 or C90, so I can't make any comparative statements. I do *think* though that Flight1 actually bought out Aeroworx and that the flight model is probably largely from the Aeroworx product (a complete assumption and I could be wrong). The Aeroworx flight model was really very good. A bit laggy with the torque (torque response in the real plane is almost immediate) but overall the performance was in-line with the real aircraft.

 

Can't comment on the ProLine 21, but I can say that we outfitted our older King Air B200 with the G1000 and it is awesome. So much so that all the line pilots wish we would refurb our other B200 to the same panel.

 

Regards,

BeachAV8R

[KenG 492]

Beach,

 

 Thank you. I have gotten my hands on the 700+ page B200 G1000 Pilot  Manual and have been pursing through the manual waiting for my Garmin Trainer to arrive.

 

 From a manual standpoint it seems the G1000 is very capable when installed in a B200 and is only missing some of the more advanced features. So far my list of G1000 cannot's seem to be Equal Time Points, RNAV RNP approaches, DME-DME scanning (Rho-Rho-Rho) as a backup to GNSS, and a few other. I have question if the G1000 is cable of abeam a fix, lat/long crossing alert, VNAV on "overlay" approaches, and using other GNSS such as GLONASS, Galileo, or Beidou.

 

Overall from a manual review the G1000 is a very capable platform from getting from point-A to point-B and was surprised by some of the optional features such as the SATCOM integration. I don't know if the SATCOM is as robust as the ARINC integrated system on the UNS-1 (Unilink) equipped aircraft (yes we have customers with full ARINC integrated SATCOM aircraft), but the system is nothing-less capable if not as robust. Synthetic vision is a bust as both systems have that capability, but I do like Gamrin's depiction of man made obstacles.

 

I think when Garmin put the G1000 into the Mustang they had to take the system up to a whole new level. This is not your C172 or Beech Baron G1000. Of course the bezel of buttons and buried menus is a learning curve but so is an FMS3000 or UNS-1.

 

I'd still take a Pro Line 21 or Pro Line Fusion equipped B200 any day of the week (as my learning curve is nil) but would not be unhappy if someone had me fly a G1000 B200. It's better than the alternative...