Are you saying You don't go into beta at all sometimes after landing?

On a related note, If I am stopped with nothing behind me to worry about prop blasting I do bring power levers over the gate and out of beta. I was waiting for a clearance one evening, parking brake set underneath a light  that was flickering at a frequency that allowed the prop blades to become visible, and they were oscillating freely through a surprising pitch range that looked like it would wear things out at a higher rate than when we came out of beta and put positive load on the blades. I used to try to minimize wear on brakes. But now I prefer to not be at zero thrust blade angle. Positive thrust, or negative (rarely actually get into reverse) but not floating in between.

And to answer your question Adam, about 40-60 knots. Not in hurry to drop rpm.
dealing with crosswind, or atc is higher priority. But I always go to flight idle and then Beta at touchdown. I got used to lift dump in jets and I feel like flight idle then beta is the next best thing.

Does anyone know if someone might have some 500S Commander Seats for sale ?     

We've had a long discussion over at the BT forum, and I think the consensus is that the FF is independent of altitude for the same KIAS (which is all we care about when we're talking aerodynamic efficiency), just as it is for pistons. But nobody is quite sure, which is a little alarming as it should be part of our collective knowledge to know that. Because if you're halfway to Hawaii and you don't have enough fuel and you pressurization fails, how do you hypermile/extend a turbines range in the best way? Vg, of course. But if we're under the false assumption that more fuel efficiency can be achieved by staying higher up, when in fact it doesn't matter, then that could have severe operational consequences.

Nobody has ever been able to verify for me that flying at Vy in a turbine allows the same efficiency as it does in a piston. I would love for it to be true, but some people claim that turbines are only efficient when they have the highest permissible operating temp. If you run them at lower temps, the efficiency drops of a cliff, they say.

So, is that true?

Another thing I'd like answered is the old Carson speed example - how the efficiency is independent of altitude. Well, is it also for turbines? We've been drilled into our head we need altitude for efficiency, but is it really true?

I had a discussion about climb profiles with Barry Lane at my recent recurrent. He also flies King Airs, and he pointed out a couple of things. First of all, the King Air wing is smaller and less efficient than the Commander wing, especially at high altitudes. Secondly, the PT6 is much less efficient at low altitudes than the 331, meaning that getting up high is more important on the PT6 airplanes than on the Commander.

So all in all, the Commander is able to climb at higher indicated airspeeds without the loss of efficiency that you would see in a King Air. He said he climbs around 160-165.