Fair selling values? We price current announcements of King Air: Complement of matter

By Marco Valverde and Rafael Payão.

To clearly understand the elements that make up the graph of the first article and the calculations used, it will be necessary to recall (or introduce) some main physical characteristics and differences – including performance – of the versions of the King Air 90 family.

Well, the King Air 90 appeared in 1964 and over time, the manufacturer Beechcraft made some changes in the project, in order to deliver more and more operational efficiency to its customers. The changes that improved the operational efficiency of the evolutions were most often subtle, however, punctual.

Table 1 – Some examples of changes between versions

We will not extend too much to the story, nor the characteristics of each one. By the way, if you are interested, I suggest accessing another Aeroflap article written by Rafael Payão, clicking here, where we tell the story, evolution and other curiosities of this iconic family of turboprops.

Together with the C90, the F90 was produced from 1979 to 1985. The differences started with the “T” tail, which allowed for less induced drag and the -135 engine, the same engine that equips the C90 family from 2005 to 2020 (GT. GTi and GTx versions). The was analog. In 1983, the F90-1 came up with some changes in the design, starting with the engine that was replaced by the -135A – which basically came with the same structure as the old one, however, with turbine discs of greater durability and also a higher temperature limit – and all the landing gear that was remodeled for the hydraulic type.

“If the F90 was more efficient because of the tail as well as the engine, why weren't they kept for later generations?” It is clear to the entire market throughout history that the F90 overshadowed the sales of the newly launched King Air 200, which is longer in length, even more powerful engines, larger wings and a whole set of significant changes compared to the 90, and most importantly, had a higher sales value, which impacted the manufacturer's annual revenue. In the same way, the F90 also brought pressure on the sales of the C90 and its production perhaps put in check the viability and, therefore, continuity of the production of the C90. However, fearing having only one type of King Air and taking away the flexibility that at the time was seen as important for the company's survival, Beechcraft discouraged the sale of the F90 until its stoppage. Also, see that while Beech delivered 202 F90 aircraft, its modernized version, the F90-1 (1983 – 1985) delivered only 33 aircraft.

Table 2 - Total deliveries by the manufacturer

“But, if the “T” tail was so good and efficient, why not use it in the new and latest C90 (GT, GTi and GTx)?” The F90 shared the platform of two aircraft, because it had the fuselage of the C90, however, wings, tail and electrical system of the King Air 200. However, it is evident that there would have to be changes in the project, at a time when the factory had just been purchased by Hawker, and therefore, it would need to demonstrate financial efficiency.

The planes left the factory with the following engine and configuration:

Table 3 – List of engines, according to versions.

However, note for higher maximum power from the C90GT onwards, however, still limited to the 550shp of the old engine. “So why increase the maximum power if the limiting continues?” Having the maximum power limit (understand thermodynamic power: 927eshp, against 663eshp) extended, favoring, for example, takeoffs on very hot days, without losing the 550shp needed to get the plane off the ground. Having said that, realize that the C90 with -21 engines would not be able to produce the 550shp of power on a takeoff with 35°C of external temperature, while an F90 or a C90GT, for example, would always use the highest resulting power. This also helps in flight, as it allows the plane to climb to higher altitudes, reducing specific consumption, that is, while an old C90 routinely flies at FL160, a C90GT with -135A flies better at FL240, since, in addition to reaching the level faster, the engine delivers more power for longer during the climb. Therefore, the advantages of a “stronger” engine are evident, so much so that there are plans to change the engine of an aircraft originally equipped with the -21 engine, to the more modern -135A, which is why in our chart there are ments with codes ending in 5A, such as the C9B935A (C90B, year 1993, with engine changed, that is, from -21 to -135A).

As for the type of landing gear, the hydraulic one is the most modern, being introduced in 1983 and maintained until the end of production of the last produced version of the family, the C90GTx. However, the new system allows for more efficient collections, reducing exposure time to parasitic drag. The hydraulic system is also cheaper than the electric one, in the composition of the value of the plane without engines: the hydraulic system would cost today, close to US$ 73.615,01; the electric: $171.740,42, excluding tires, brakes, actuation arms, and locks. Therefore, it is a system with a lower cost than the electric one. However, the type of landing gear system influences the composition of the real value of each ment, although there is no adaptation from an originally electric one to the most modern one, in other words, the type of landing gear system is intrinsically linked to the year of the airplane.

The King Air can be equipped with some accessories, such as the Raisbeck kit, which improves the flight, takeoff and landing performance of a C90. However, we believe that this variable seems to have no weight in the composition of the sale value of an aircraft, that is, mathematically, the market does not seem to take into the installed accessories, although we are sure that it influences the speed of conclusion of an ment sale.

Number of propeller blades varies between being three-blade or four-blade. However, all the ments that we analyzed are with the type of propeller according to the original design of each engine that was installed versus the year of manufacture of the airplane. Also, see that we have defined a variable called “PERFORMANCE” (DPO), which influences the composition of the real value of each sample element, also because it allows different fuel consumption and average speeds, version by version.

Finally, variables were used to compose the calculations and create the first graph, posted in the previous article. There are dependent variables, such as approximate cost for engine overhaul (in US dollars) and hours available for each ad, and independent variables, such as those described below:

• DPO (performance):
  • The respective POH ("Pilot Operating Handbook”), section V, of each model, according to Appendix A, posted at the end of this article;
  • The following formula was defined to obtain the result: MAXIMUM TAKEOFF WEIGHT multiplied by AVERAGE SPEED. The result was divided by TOTAL CONSUMPTION, considering a mission of 532,6nm, the equivalent of a flight between Congonhas airport (São Paulo – SP) to Brasília airport.
  • It is important to see Appendix A, to understand the formulation of this variable.
• IDA (relative age):
  • Refers to subtracting 2022 from the year of manufacture of each ment;
• NLP ():
  • Notes were applied, on top of the capacity, where:
    • 4: “full glass cockpit”, as in the GTi and GTx that already left the factory with the Proline 21 or the newer Proline Fusion;
    • 3: with more than one latest generation touchscreen.
    • 2: It only has a state-of-the-art touchscreen.
    • 1: It has a with more than one screen, however, these are old technologies.

However, in order to arrive at the parameterized value result (which should be fair), it was first necessary to calculate the linear regression, in order to subsequently have the parameterization calculation, taking into the result of the identified standard error and the relevance of the coefficients. Next, see the result from a linear regression and in the following table, the result of the parameterized value, which serves as a conclusion for our work.

Table 4 – Calculation of probable (or negotiated) value and net value, discounting engine overhaul cost.

From the columns under “DEPENDENT VARIABLE”, note:

• Value offered: it is what is d;
• FO: offer factor, applied to the difference between the modeled value of the offer (last column of table 5, below) and the value of the ad. Values ​​are assigned between 85 and 95%, depending on the variation of the result.
• Probable/negotiated value: is the offered value, with the application of the offer factor.
• Cost "overhaul” total: is the average value reported by the engine manufacturer (PWC on its own website) to perform the overhaul of each engine;
  • PT6A-135A: $285.000,00 each;
  • PT6A-135: $285.000,00 each;
  • PT6A-21: US$235.000,00 each.
• TBO: It is the recommended time for engine overhaul, according to the manufacturer. All elements have 3.600 hours of TBO;
• HD: Available engine hours for the next major overhaul, for each announcement.
• RHD: Available hours ratio (available hours/TBO);
• Available “Overhaul” cost: is the multiplication of the value of the general overhaul of two engines by the total available of the engines of each ad;
• Net deal value: is the likely/negotiated value (described above), minus available overhaul cost. This last data is not very relevant, serving only for extra information.

Now, the table with the result of the parameterized values ​​of each ad:

Table 5 - Result of the parameterized value

However, to the observations:

• DPO: This is the resulting value generated in table 4, according to the respective explanation;
• DPOxB1 VALUE: The calculation demonstrates the relevance of this independent variable in the composition of the price of the plane. The B1 coefficient can be found in table 6, below;
• IDA: Follows the same pattern, as shown in Table 4;
• IDAxB2 VALUE: The calculation also demonstrates the relevance of this independent variable in the composition of the price of the plane. The B2 coefficient can be found in table 6, below;
• NLP: Follows the same pattern, as shown in Table 4;
• VALOR PNLxB3: Follows the same pattern as described above. The B3 coefficient is identified in Table 6, below.
• NET MODELED VALUE: It is the sum of the relevances resulting from the last three variables (commented above), plus the B0 coefficient (intersection).
• AVAILABLE OVERHAUL COST: Same explanation, as per table 4;
• MODELED BUSINESS VALUE: It is the sum of the last two columns, commented here;
• MODELED OFFER VALUE Results in the inverse application of the standard offer factor, which is 10% (1/(1-0,1).

As we can see in the next table (below), the accuracy of the linear regression is very high, since the F value of significance is far below the 5% standard, indicating that the probability of there being no relationship between the variables and the final prices is almost non-existent. There is also statistical confirmation that the ratio of dependent and independent variables is 96,47%. The model we used for linear regression, as shown in Table 4, shows that there is a relationship of 93% of changes in the values ​​of the independent and dependent variables. As for the standard error, it seems to be consistent with what is practiced in the market, as it is clear that the offered sales value applied by each r does not seem to follow technical criteria, most of the time. Only the value of the DPO variable seems not to interfere much in the purchase decision of those interested in the King Air C90 or F90 and their versions, given that the -P value of the respective variable is far beyond the 5% standard. On the other hand, age seems to be extremely sensitive to buyers, as well as the modernity of the technology installed in the s.

Table 7 - SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Anyway, do you want to know more about our services applied to general aviation or aircraft for sale? Get in touch by email [email protected]. We offer aircraft purchase consulting service, sales brokerage, aircraft management and even aircraft import consulting. Be sure to ask for your budget, without commitments.

APPENDIX A