Page 1 of 1

Perfomance difference between King Air 350 and B1900D

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 7:34 am
by sho69607
Since both the King Air 350 and the B1900D use powerful PT6A engines, why is the King Air able to fly faster, higher, and further than the B1900D? I do realize the 1900D is a commuter class airplane and does hold more passengers, but is that the only reason it lags behind the King Air in terms of performance and range?

Re: Perfomance difference between King Air 350 and B1900D

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:39 am
by Woodreau
Because the B1900 is so ugly (with all of its extra aerodynamic fins and stabilons) it doesn’t fly, instead it’s repelled from the Earth.

Re: Perfomance difference between King Air 350 and B1900D

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:38 am
by Max Q
Woodreau wrote:
Because the B1900 is so ugly (with all of its extra aerodynamic fins and stabilons) it doesn’t fly, instead it’s repelled from the Earth.



It is not the sleekest machine


I’ve never seen so many things hanging off an aircraft to make it fly right

Re: Perfomance difference between King Air 350 and B1900D

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 6:05 pm
by LH707330
The 1900D almost certainly has a higher drag coefficient, due to:

1. The taller roof
2. The little stub fins
3. Longer fuselage

Maybe a few other things. Also, speed is less important on a 1900 than a 350.

Re: Perfomance difference between King Air 350 and B1900D

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:39 pm
by SuperiorPilotMe
Without even looking it up I’ll bet the 350 has much higher rated engines then the Delta. Those 350s are speed demons because they have the benefit of some of the most powerful PT6A variants yet (not all PT6As are created equally!)

Re: Perfomance difference between King Air 350 and B1900D

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:49 pm
by Max Q
SuperiorPilotMe wrote:
Without even looking it up I’ll bet the 350 has much higher rated engines then the Delta. Those 350s are speed demons because they have the benefit of some of the most powerful PT6A variants yet (not all PT6As are created equally!)



It’s an impressive aircraft, with the updated engines the Blackhawk mod offers the 350
can cruise at nearly 340 knots

Re: Perfomance difference between King Air 350 and B1900D

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 6:48 am
by gloom
SuperiorPilotMe wrote:
Without even looking it up I’ll bet the 350 has much higher rated engines then the Delta.


You just lost your bet.

B1900D uses PT6A-67D, rated 1200SHP.
350 uses PT6A-60A, rated 1050SHP.

1900D is a bit heavier, but it's negligible (10%, is less than power difference). Initial climb rate is pretty much similar as well. It's the cruise altitude that makes difference - assuming both cruise at approx 190KIAS, 1900D at typical cruise 16000-17000 would be like +33%, 253KTAS, while 350 going all the way to say F320 would be at +64% with a whooping 312 KTAS. So, the difference is up to wing, induced drag, pressurize system and altitude.

Cheers,
Adam

Re: Perfomance difference between King Air 350 and B1900D

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:17 am
by kabq737
Woodreau wrote:
Because the B1900 is so ugly (with all of its extra aerodynamic fins and stabilons) it doesn’t fly, instead it’s repelled from the Earth.

Ugh I really wanted to defend the looks of the 1900 since I work for a company that operates them...but I just can’t...it’s one ugly bird.

Re: Perfomance difference between King Air 350 and B1900D

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:50 pm
by SheikhDjibouti
gloom wrote:
B1900D uses PT6A-67D, rated 1200SHP.
350 uses PT6A-60A, rated 1050SHP.

1900D is a bit heavier, but it's negligible (10%, is less than power difference). Initial climb rate is pretty much similar as well. It's the cruise altitude that makes difference - assuming both cruise at approx 190KIAS, 1900D at typical cruise 16000-17000 would be like +33%, 253KTAS, while 350 going all the way to say F320 would be at +64% with a whooping 312 KTAS. So, the difference is up to wing, induced drag, pressurize system and altitude.

Cheers,
Adam

There is an old saying; if it looks right, it probably flies right.
Hence.... King Air 350 ….versus 1900C …..versus 1900D

The first is a greyhound, the second a saluki, and the third is a beluga whale. :lol:

What is somewhat surprising are the contrasting specifications.

The King Air 350 weighs in at 10,000 lb OEW with 11 seats, which is a whopping 1100lb more than the 10 seat King Air 250. That is a lot of extra weight for one extra seat and a pair of windows. (ok, there must be other differences too, but it appears luxury and space was given a priority over weight)
Hence comparing the weights of the 350 against the stripped out 1900D comes from a poor starting position.

Both the 1900C and D models are considerably longer, but for me it is the 1900D's higher roofline that is the defining feature, and precisely the reason why it is so abominably ugly. :vomit:

For me, the Beech 99 was a closer approximation, squeezing 15 pax into an airframe with dimensions similar to the 250/350, but stripped out so that it weighed less than a bag of marshmallows. On top of that, it only had engines with less than half the power of today's 1900s.

This engine/fuel efficiency came at a cost though; cruise speed was way down.

I haven't found specific data for the 1900C except for the engines which are rated at 1100 eshp (as opposed to 1279 eshp for the 1900D).
I humbly suggest that most of the extra 179 shp is purely to overcome the drag from the higher roof.

But at the end of the day, as a passenger, if I can't have a 350 all to myself, give me the 1900D.

Re: Perfomance difference between King Air 350 and B1900D

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:16 pm
by LH707330
The 350 is heavier than the 250 because it's longer and has bigger engines to support a higher payload range curve. Comparing floor area per OEW might give a better idea, and I suspect the 350 does better in that regard.

Re: Perfomance difference between King Air 350 and B1900D

Posted: Mon May 06, 2019 11:15 am
by MoKa777
Woodreau wrote:
Because the B1900 is so ugly (with all of its extra aerodynamic fins and stabilons) it doesn’t fly, instead it’s repelled from the Earth.


This is officially one of the best comments I've ever read on a.net (if not the internet as a whole)!!! Hahaha!

Re: Perfomance difference between King Air 350 and B1900D

Posted: Sat May 18, 2019 1:45 pm
by slcguy
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
gloom wrote:
B1900D uses PT6A-67D, rated 1200SHP.
350 uses PT6A-60A, rated 1050SHP.

1900D is a bit heavier, but it's negligible (10%, is less than power difference). Initial climb rate is pretty much similar as well. It's the cruise altitude that makes difference - assuming both cruise at approx 190KIAS, 1900D at typical cruise 16000-17000 would be like +33%, 253KTAS, while 350 going all the way to say F320 would be at +64% with a whooping 312 KTAS. So, the difference is up to wing, induced drag, pressurize system and altitude.

Cheers,
Adam

There is an old saying; if it looks right, it probably flies right.
Hence.... King Air 350 ….versus 1900C …..versus 1900D

The first is a greyhound, the second a saluki, and the third is a beluga whale. :lol:

What is somewhat surprising are the contrasting specifications.

The King Air 350 weighs in at 10,000 lb OEW with 11 seats, which is a whopping 1100lb more than the 10 seat King Air 250. That is a lot of extra weight for one extra seat and a pair of windows. (ok, there must be other differences too, but it appears luxury and space was given a priority over weight)
Hence comparing the weights of the 350 against the stripped out 1900D comes from a poor starting position.

Both the 1900C and D models are considerably longer, but for me it is the 1900D's higher roofline that is the defining feature, and precisely the reason why it is so abominably ugly. :vomit:

For me, the Beech 99 was a closer approximation, squeezing 15 pax into an airframe with dimensions similar to the 250/350, but stripped out so that it weighed less than a bag of marshmallows. On top of that, it only had engines with less than half the power of today's 1900s.

This engine/fuel efficiency came at a cost though; cruise speed was way down.

I haven't found specific data for the 1900C except for the engines which are rated at 1100 eshp (as opposed to 1279 eshp for the 1900D).
I humbly suggest that most of the extra 179 shp is purely to overcome the drag from the higher roof.

But at the end of the day, as a passenger, if I can't have a 350 all to myself, give me the 1900D.


The 350 is the epitome of the original King Air (90.100, 200, 300, 350) great private/corporate planes.
The Beech 99 was the first attempt at a 15 passenger commuter airliner version but was limited due to being unpressurized unlike the King Airs which meant flying low and slow.
The 1900C was a much more capable 19 seat pressurized aircraft for commuter airlines, direct competitor to the SWM Metro. Was cramped for passengers but still a bit roomier due to the squarer fuselage than the Metro's round Pringle's can shape.
The 1900D with the raised roofline was much more passenger friendly. With the additional power and improved wing, even with all the additional fins and higher roofline it outperformed the 1900C in most cases (climb, speed and range) just not as fast as a King Air 350. But was down right ugly.

Re: Perfomance difference between King Air 350 and B1900D

Posted: Sat May 18, 2019 2:12 pm
by FlyHossD
Max Q wrote:
Woodreau wrote:
Because the B1900 is so ugly (with all of its extra aerodynamic fins and stabilons) it doesn’t fly, instead it’s repelled from the Earth.


It is not the sleekest machine

I’ve never seen so many things hanging off an aircraft to make it fly right


IIRC (it's been a lot of years), the 1900s were dispatchable without the horizontal "surfboard", but that imposed C.G. range restrictions. I can remember at least 3 occasions when a bag cart hit it and it had to be removed.

And "fly right" it did, the 1900s were very nice handling airplanes. I've flown a King Air 300, but not a 350. The 1900 was the better handling airplane.

I do remember a tiny spat with a Beech salesman. When we were picking up new 1900s at the factory, I'd heard about the new - and secret - 300S - a stretched King Air 300 which later became known as the 350. A few weeks later, I had a discussion with a King Air 300 pilot who was interested in a bigger cabin like the 1900 had, but didn't want to cruise at 250-260 knots as the 1900 typically did. I suggested that he contact his Beech representative about the 300S; he obviously did because I got a phone call from our Beech rep who was upset that I'd let the cat-out-of-the-bag; I asked him if I got part of the commission for the sale of a 300S/350; that changed the tone of the phone call quite a bit.