King Air 100 with Raisbeck conversion....

Meso · Post by **Meso** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:11 am

Just wondering if any of you King Air drivers have ever flown a 100(or any Beech for that matter) before and after the kit was put on. Is there anything to watch out for, weird or better handling characteristics ect... can you notice the performance differences for climb and cruise?

Thanks!

water wings · Post by **water wings** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:55 am

You likely will not notice any huge dramatic difference in the air between the 2. The performance charts give you a pretty good idea of the differences and what to expect for planning (ie: gross weight, take off and climb power, etc.) You will notice power settings are different than standard King Airs.
The only thing that is somewhat noticeable in handling is the flare. Don't chop the power too much, you'll drop like a set of keys. As one guy said as he pulled back in the flare regarding Raisebecks "shit, it's one of those" thump. Other than that, just know the different numbers for the converted planes and enjoy! Both standard and Raisebecks fly like a King Air, steady and stable.

greenwich · Post by **greenwich** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:59 am

The main difference is that the 'kit' allows you to carry WAY more weight in technically the same aircraft (ie same engines, etc.).

Single engine climb performance goes out the window! So you have to cross your fingers every time you head down the runway with a full load!

G

chief · Post by **chief** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:35 am

Yeah put er up to GW and then fly it. You will notice the characteristics then. Probably one of the best upgrades for an airplane out there from an owners POV is the 100 raisbeck conversion though.

confuzed · Post by **confuzed** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:52 am

[quote="water wings"] As one guy said as he pulled back in the flare regarding Raisebecks "shit, it's one of those" thump.[quote]

That sounds like a P.D. type comment

JZA · Post by **JZA** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:00 am

It's a really good airplane....and exceptionally quiet inside. The single engine performance is actually really good at 13000' regardless of what the charts say. I speak from experience.

3Green · Post by **3Green** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:48 pm

If you're going from the single aft strake to a dual aft strake, you'll notice a pronounced difference with stability. Also it was much quieter with the props now coming back to 1750 intsead of 1900. I enjoyed the conversion (BE10).
As a side note, I met Mr. Raisebeck at the NBAA in Orlando a few years back. Super nice guy. He had a pretty nifty display of ALL Raisebeck conversion items (ie: wing lockers, etc.).

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:34 pm

Flew an early 100 (serial 24) both before and after. After was a much much better airplane. Quieter, more weiht carrying, better stability with the aft strakes, better single engine handling. Only two problems of note. Minimum single engine climb, by certification standards is a function of gross weight and stall speed. Lower the stall speed and you lower the minimum required climb performance. Just like vortex generators. The props create more drag at idle so it will plump on till you get used to it and keeping the minimum 1000 RPM on the ground is a pain in the ass. High idle helps. Well worth the extra.

chief · Post by **chief** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:49 pm

They should be rigged to obtain the required 1100 rpm at 60%.

sprucemonkey · Post by **sprucemonkey** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:07 am

....real savage like.......

DONT SAY THAT YOU LOVE ME!!!!

TUSK......

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:50 am

I think itt depends on what mods you put on it. Raisbeck strakes make it les unstable about the vertical axis, 4 blade props will make it takeoff and climb better, but 10 knots slower in cruise and much much slower in descent. One 100 I know of has a Vmo of 206! down from 226, Yuck.

Of course 4 blades are quieter in cruise which is nice. Wing lockers are nearly useless unless you carry 3 foot long slender cargo like individual golf clubs, a stretcher, clip deck, guns, or maybe tennis rackets. The biggest difference is of course with the gross weight increase if you get it.

Then as stated performance tends to go south in all phases. Plus you're still limited by the zero fuel weight of 9600, and landing weight 10 925 (vs 11 210 for the A100), so really short hops might be a problem.

That said if I owned a straight 100 and wanted to make more money so I could afford to pay my pilots more

I'd prefer a plane with a 11 500 to weight over one with the original 10600.

chief · Post by **chief** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 9:03 am

the straight 100 with raisbeck conv had a GW of 11834. the empty weight of our plane on average was 6800. With 2 pilots plus 9 pax and 700 pounds of cargo the ZFW was not even an issue (and still take almost full fuel. With older pax weights you could take full fuel) . You could pretty much just fill this plane and go.

Meso · Post by **Meso** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:53 pm

[quote="water wings"] As one guy said as he pulled back in the flare regarding Raisebecks "shit, it's one of those" [thump]. [quote]

well, no worries there, ive got the thump part down pat!
I've heard that the raisbeck put on both the A100 and a straight 100 makes them virtually the same aircraft. Truth? Also, our 100 does not have a zero fuel weight, does that change with the kit, or are older 100's different than newer ones?

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:36 pm

All the 100's I've flown had a ZFW, but who knows? There might be exceptions.

confuzed · Post by **confuzed** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:26 pm

Meso wrote:
water wings wrote: As one guy said as he pulled back in the flare regarding Raisebecks "shit, it's one of those" [thump].

well, no worries there, ive got the thump part down pat!
I've heard that the raisbeck put on both the A100 and a straight 100 makes them virtually the same aircraft. Truth? Also, our 100 does not have a zero fuel weight, does that change with the kit, or are older 100's different than newer ones?

Whatever you heard was incorrect. The raisebeck is a much better a/c as I've flown both. The zero fuel weight for the straight 100 is 9600 lbs (been a while, someone can confirm this) and 10,000 lbs for the raisebeck.

Pie Lot · Post by **Pie Lot** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:17 am

Ah Yeah!

chief · Post by **chief** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 4:36 am

The straight 100 without raisbeck does not have a ZFW. With the raisbeck it is 10K I believe (heck maybe it was 9600). But either way if your empty weight was as light as ours it will not be a problem. The A100 with raisbeck is not necescarily the same aircraft as the straight 100 becuase its empty weight was usually 400-500 lbs heavier.

confuzed · Post by **confuzed** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:21 am

Sorry, I didn't mean the King Air 100....I meant the non raisebeck A100 has a ZFW of 9600lbs (again it's been awhile, someone can confirm that for me). I've never flown the straight 100, just the A100 with and without raisebeck. Great airplane to fly.

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:19 am

Yeah and I'm confused now too. I flew 100's and A100's and some had mods some didn't but I don't know who's mods. I just remember the trade off with a straight 100 was if you want more payload, Vmo goes down. Some guys seemed to think that if you were below 10 600 the higher Vmo still applied but that's not the case.

The only time you really have to worry about ZFW is when you have 11 seats, a boat load of groceries (read health food and vitamins), and a short hop. Landing weight can also be a problem on those Aklavik freighters but only if you had more fuel than you needed (like a last minute dispatch aircraft change).

King Air 100 with Raisbeck conversion....

King Air 100 with Raisbeck conversion....

Tusk