Nope. The only one with the cursed GArrett was a very short run of the 200.
This was when the company was still being run by Mrs. Beech. She was, despite
her humble background, a bralliant businesswoman. Should she lived longer, the
company might have grown a lot more and no been decimated, as it was under the
thumb of Raytheon. They were having problems in their dealings with P&W, and
she said, loosely, WE'll show them! P&W thought they had beech by the balls,
but they put the garretts in the B200 and brought P&W to heel.
Now there are some companies that have STC's to put Garretts on aircraft that
came with a PT6. I'm familiar with the Garretts from flying in cessna 441's,
the King air Killer a sit was known inside the company, and we all know how
that worked out.The garretts are slightly more efficient, but from my
experience, they produce more noise that thrust. The engine is controlled by
prop pitch, and operates at 90 to 100% power regardless. On the ramp, they are
dangerous. I saw several displayed at Oshkosh a few years ago, and said to the
salesman, don't folks have a problem with the noise? Why they are whisper quiet
he says, and I walked away shaking my head. Beech has always been right there
for the PT6. They are still there, in not only King Airs but in more muscular
versions, the T-6 and the AT-6. The PT6 no comes in many different versions,
and the big one is at least 3 times the HP of the small one..
I think Alaska is about the only place they still live on. But they are ideal
for a lot of Alaskan routes. The Metro is a weird frankenstein combination of
new parts and old ones from scrapped King Airs. Not the most uncomfortable to
fly on, but certainly number 2. With the larger versions of the PT6 you
wouldn't have been bumped. But they didn't make them in time.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 5:20:06 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: The Bone Yard
> The 200 is an older version of the top of the line. The 350 is the hottest
> corporate turboprop out there. Akk the King airs are noted for their
> suitability for shorter stage lengths, suitability for unimproved fields, and
> low cost of operation. And they have a reputation for being built like a
> tank. The 200 and 350 both have T tails. the 90 is the smallest and oldest of
> all. The 90 was an outgrwoth of the QueenAir, an early pressurized piston
> twin that was fitted with a pair of PT6's. The 90 has been made better in
> many ways over the years, and is good for smaller needs. The 90 is
> distinguished by its conventional tail.
I thought the 90 was outfitted with a Garrett and the PT6 came later
and became standard for the entire line.
> And don't forget the 1900, a stretched and blown up King Air that served as a
> 19 passenger airliner when those were common. It wasn't the best, but it sure
> beat a Swearingen Metro.
I've taken MANY flights in those. Including the one that later had an
unfortunate space/time continuum problem with a 90 at Quincy,
Illinois. It turns out that the emergency escape could become
jammed--trapping the passengers inside.
I always thought that the Metroliner and the 1900 were right at the
knife edge of performance. I got bumped from more than one flight
because the temperature was one degree too high.
I think the bulk of the 1900s are flying here in Alaska. I see one or
two of them almost every time I'm at an airport.
AK Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|