What is it???

Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by bmcj, Sep 17, 2019.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Sep 18, 2019 #21

    Mad MAC

    Mad MAC

    Mad MAC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    413
    Likes Received:
    167
    Location:
    Hamilton New Zealand
    ATR's and SAAB's are cheating being proper baby airliners (Part 25).

    The 19 seat aircraft (commuter category) are an interest example of different design approaches to a problem:
    Beechcraft 1900D: Best cabin about, good block time due to high climb rate, but high empty weight & fuel burn.
    Fairchild SA227: quick, cheap and cheerful. nosily as hell, cramped, good example what happens when you take GA sheet metal design abit far (lots & lots of little cracks). they have a 35000 cycle life and probably struggle to get there. Random fact, they have bare metal on wings to meet lighting strike requirements.
    Jetstream J31/J32: little brick outhouse good for 90,000 cycles due to bonded aluminum. 3 abreast seating means the cabin is too short to separate cargo and passenger loading which seems to drive operators to the belly pods more than anything else. Has that lovely English feature of the spar not stepping down in the cabin (does this mean the design team lived in 300 plus year old houses and didn't think stepping over a beam was anything of note).

    If only someone would build J31's with a couple of fuse plugs and give it a cargo door.
     
  2. Sep 18, 2019 #22

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,553
    Likes Received:
    3,234
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    SAAB 340 is the best. Such great planes. The company too. J31s, nothing like tripping on the spar carry through walking down the isle, and fuel panels in the rear spar. English manuals written in France.
     
  3. Sep 19, 2019 #23

    C.D. Donald

    C.D. Donald

    C.D. Donald

    New Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2019
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    The 1900s were flying long before the KingAir 350. I was delivering new 1900s when the 350 was just a proposal (then) known as the 300S.
     
  4. Sep 19, 2019 #24

    C.D. Donald

    C.D. Donald

    C.D. Donald

    New Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2019
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    As originally designed, the 1900 had a rather limited C.G. range. The "surfboard" (as we called it) allowed for a much greater range. From time to time, a tug or bag cart would hit the surfboard; it we had it removed, the plane could be ferried back to our maintenance base for repair, but at a reduced C.G. range. I'm not sure where my copy of the aircraft manual is any longer.

    The original 1900s were intended to be simple stretches of the 200. Further, the initial concept was a commuter aircraft for business people who would be making trips on the same day, so they really didn't need luggage; the first 3 1900s were 1900A models with forward AND aft airstair doors. Once the sales campaigns to the airlines began, Beech heard the need for a cargo door (rather than the aft airstair door).
     
    bmcj likes this.
  5. Sep 20, 2019 #25

    Twodeaddogs

    Twodeaddogs

    Twodeaddogs

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    233
    Location:
    Dunlavin, County Wicklow,Ireland
    My flight instructor in Texas referred to the 1900D as the "Big Head Beechcraft", the Metroliner as the Texas Death Sled and the Beech 18's many conversions had earned his undying hatred, having spent a lot of time flying cargo at night in all sorts of twins. The Jetstream family eventually grew to the ATP, also named the Jetstream 61 and usually called the "Another Technical Problem". The buying public stayed away in droves and BAe's tech support was regarded as poor, being almost as bad as French tech support, which is legendary for being crap. Being British, all Jetstreams are built like tanks and maintenance access is regarded as a sport between designer and mechanic. The original version with Astazou engines was regarded as a comical joke and most of them ended up with the RAF as major user. The later Garrett engines made them usable by airlines. The Saab 340 was also known as the "Slab" and was characterised by it's parts being consistently more expensive than any of the competition. Saab even made a stretched version called the 2000, to compete with regional jets and the parts stayed very,very expensive so the airlines stayed away from them and Saab gave up making them.....I worked on a King Air 200 for a few years and that aircraft was the benchmark for reliability, utility, ease of access and all-round good design. When you encounter later aircraft, that were allegedly better and more modern, you have to wonder.
     
  6. Sep 20, 2019 #26

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,553
    Likes Received:
    3,234
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    The 2000 was a day too late; the Canadairs and Embrear were popping up and the flying public hate turboprops. Especially small ones.

    The SAABs are bonded aluminum and honeycomb composite even if it looks like a WW2 light bomber. The only rivets are for peel on corners. SAAB management would just about do anything for you to get you going. If you called Canadair, they would ask for $1500 up front before they would talk... to an airline that flies their products. When you are a regular mechanic looking for an answer, it really is a put off. That had been solved at the corporate level, but they still tried to hit you up for money. I think if you called BAE up about the J31, I think they would say “ What is that?”
     
  7. Sep 20, 2019 #27

    Twodeaddogs

    Twodeaddogs

    Twodeaddogs

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    233
    Location:
    Dunlavin, County Wicklow,Ireland
    We operated BAe 146s and they had a seperate branch of the company that dealt with these and the J31/41/61 types and quite frankly, they couldn't care less if they tried. BAe was more interested in defence work and the legacy aircraft like J41s didnt interest them and on the one occasion that I had personal contact with their people, to try and order a door, the guy on the other end of the phone sounded like he'd been asked to sell carpet shampoo. Thankfully, there was a tech rep at our main base who used to go around useless sales staff and actually talk to the design people and the parts manufacturers directly. Over all, our customer experience was poor.
     
  8. Sep 21, 2019 #28

    C.D. Donald

    C.D. Donald

    C.D. Donald

    New Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2019
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    I attended a sales meeting from Saab for their 2000 - the performance was very impressive. But so was the price! Their price for the 2000 was greater than what Canadair was asking for the CRJ-100 and Embraer was asking for the aircraft that became the EMB-145.

    And yes, our airline acknowledged that there was a "turboprop avoidance factor" among the potential customers. These days, with widespread internet based ticketing, I wonder if the customers would even know - thus care - if a flight was operated by a turboprop or regional jet before purchasing the ticket. That is, for the vast majority of customers, it's price, price, price!
     

Share This Page

arrow_white