King Air Cheaper to Operate than Cessna 340?

[Colonel]

The moo-too killed so many people like that, the FAA hadda make an SFAR for it.

In Canada it requires a single pilot high performance type rating (I think - it's been a while)
so that should be the gate-keeper.

If no one will sign off the type rating, he's out of the game. If someone is willing to
sign off his type rating, well, I guess they're ok with committing murder for hire. Lots
of people out there like that.

Down here you need 1000TT for a type rating so that takes care of many of the suicidal wingnuts.

[Slick Goodlin]

The moo-too killed so many people like that, the FAA hadda make an SFAR for it.

It’s no longer under the SFAR, they moved it to whatever the FAA equivalent of the Standards is called. The reason being the FARs take an act of federal government to change, even if all you want to do is update them. I had a pending SFAR amendment sitting on my desk for years waiting for congress or whoever to OK it.

The MU-2 specific FAA rules really bring the training and currency standards mostly in line with what was already required in Canada. Amazingly the accident rate dropped overnight to about 1/20 of what it had been.

Still, I’m conflicted on the airplane itself. I really liked flying it and found it didn’t have any built-in bad habits, often saying anyone could fly one. On the other hand, it has zero forgiveness of lapses in attention so I recognize not everyone should fly one.

[Squaretail]

As long as nothing breaks, maybe.

But if your engine needs work, there's no way a King Air is cheaper.

I would counter that its way less likely to have an engine issue with the turbines than the pistons. While each big event in the King air is expensive, the piston engines are going to be more of a death by thousand cuts costs, and in long run, equal out. Except you're getting better performance and mileage from the turbines. From a commercial operations perspective, pilots can do less harm to a pair of turbines, they're a bit more idiot proof. Getting cylinders for the Continental 520 is getting problematic these days and quality is poor on what's available. So if up time is a premium for you you'd be nuts to be trying to run a 340 for any sort of commercial enterprise. If you don't need the pressurization, you'd be better off with a 310 anyhow.

I mean if you're just buying a 340 to say you fly a twin, and its more of a hangar ornament, then yeah, the king air is going to be over kill expensive. If you're putting a lot of miles and hours on an airframe for serious use, well there's a reason you don't see many 340s in commercial service. Most of the guys I know who had 340s gave them up a while ago.

[David MacRay]

Still, I’m conflicted on the airplane itself. I really liked flying it and found it didn’t have any built-in bad habits, often saying anyone could fly one. On the other hand, it has zero forgiveness of lapses in attention so I recognize not everyone should fly one.

So one minute I’m flying along, thinking about boobs or pizza, next thing you know, I wake up eating goop through a tube in my nose?

[digits]

As long as nothing breaks, maybe.

But if your engine needs work, there's no way a King Air is cheaper.

I would counter that its way less likely to have an engine issue with the turbines than the pistons. While each big event in the King air is expensive, the piston engines are going to be more of a death by thousand cuts costs, and in long run, equal out. Except you're getting better performance and mileage from the turbines. From a commercial operations perspective, pilots can do less harm to a pair of turbines, they're a bit more idiot proof. Getting cylinders for the Continental 520 is getting problematic these days and quality is poor on what's available. So if up time is a premium for you you'd be nuts to be trying to run a 340 for any sort of commercial enterprise. If you don't need the pressurization, you'd be better off with a 310 anyhow.

I mean if you're just buying a 340 to say you fly a twin, and its more of a hangar ornament, then yeah, the king air is going to be over kill expensive. If you're putting a lot of miles and hours on an airframe for serious use, well there's a reason you don't see many 340s in commercial service. Most of the guys I know who had 340s gave them up a while ago.

I thought the question was for a privately owned 340. But it isn't specified anywhere, so fair enough.

For a private plane, there is no 'long run', you might only fly it 100 hours a year, likely less.

Commercially a King Air might make sense yes.

[David MacRay]

100 hours a year used to be the point where owning could be less expensive than renting. Otherwise the fixed costs made it less expensive to rent.

[Big Pistons Forever]

My buddy had a nice C340 for 15 years. He took care of it and total fixed ownership costs averaged out to 50K per year. Some years were cheaper but others were more costly…..then you put gas in it. Do the math on 36 gal/hr block fuel flow

[anofly]

Insurance companies for the most part, dictate what you can and cannot fly. Unless you are so rich that you dont need hull insurance...

[Slick Goodlin]

So one minute I’m flying along, thinking about boobs or pizza, next thing you know, I wake up eating goop through a tube in my nose?

Jeez I hope not.

[David MacRay]

Me too, zero tolerance made it sound like, it’s just waiting for a chance to turtle and break apart.