1900 Bfl?

[Capthuff]

What is typical t/o for the various models of the 1900?

 

[chperplt]

A typical take off for a beech 1900... add power, roll down the runway picking up speed, rotate, fly.

What do you mean a typical take off?

 

[Capthuff]

I apoligize for not being specific.
Rwy required T/O and landing roll

 

[Cardinal]

I'm afraid my FSM doesn't have sea-level, standard day numers in it. It does have data for 4000 and 6000ft pressure altitudes. I'm assuming you're operating under Part 91?

At 4000 msl, +10C. MGTOW 17120lbs, Flaps 17, bleeds and anti-ice off:
4566 feet.
-35C would require 3522 feet. +30C would require 5061 feet.
At +10C leave the bleeds open and that distance increases by about 200 feet. Reduce the takeoff weight to 16,000 and you can shave 500 feet of that distance. Leave the Flaps at 0 5481 feet under the same conditions.

Worst case (save someplace extreme like Telluride) Denver, 6000 msl at +30C, MGTOW 17120 Flaps 17, bleeds and ice off, 5900 feet required. However I'm not sure that the aircraft, in that configuration, could climb on one engine in that configuration sufficient to satisfy the feds, thus you might have to leave the Flaps at 0, and you'd need 7100 feet (!). I'm afraid the manual I'm using just has some sample data, the good charts are in the airplane. I jsut don't have the data handy to come up with accurate weight restrictions. Nor do I have landing field lengths, but it can land anywhere that it can depart from.

BOW is usally around 10800 with an el cheapo 19 seat interior, gross 17120.
You can stuff 4458 pounds of fuel onboard, burns 960/hr
Flight planned at 285 ktas.
Any other numbers you're curious about, or takeoff scenarios, by all means ask. It'll help me remember this stuff if I ever get called back.

 

[stillaboo]

it can land anywhere that it can depart from.

Heck, it can land anywhere a Bonanza or Baron can!

Speakin' of, rumor is landing distance is lowest with props at Ground fine stops, not in reverse (something about the drag being greater at GF (-5.9 degrees) than the effectiveness of full reverse (-14.5 degrees). Both seemed quite effective to me (pushed me into the harness). Any thoughts?

-Boo!

 

[wingnutt]

Heck, it can land anywhere a Bonanza or Baron can!

hmmm...i could routinely plop the old F33 on the threshold and have completed a 180 to get out of the way of an incoming RJ before the 1,000 foot marker. now ive never flown a 1900, but...

 

[chperplt]

Someone told me that if you land on the numbers and put the aircraft in ground fine, you can be at a complete stop in under 1000 feet.

They also said you shouldn't have any passengers on board when you try this.


stillaboo

On the UE model, using reverse will not give you the best stopping ability. Ground fine works much better.

 

[NEDude]

While I have never compared stopping distance, ground fine is very effective. I almost never use reverse. And when I do, it doesn't seem to make that much of a difference. As for landing performance, we have numbers for 33R in BOS, which is 2500'. Since you tend to be right on top of things when landing on that runway, sometimes you have to add power just to get to the end of the runway. So you can land it just about anywhere.

 

[chperplt]

I landed on 33R a couple years ago during a repo flight. The hardest part I had was finding it. You get a little low to check out the scenery on the beach and lose sight of the runway. Had no problems stopping at all.

 

[Cardinal]

On the UE model, using reverse will not give you the best stopping ability. Ground fine works much better.

I haven't conducted a formal study or anything, but reverse always felt real effective, maybe it was just all the noise and blowing snow. I can't wrap my brain around this. Can anyone give me a legitimate aerodynamic explanation for ground fine being more effective than reverse? Have the blades just gone way beyond thier critical AoA in reverse?

 

[I.P. Freley]

I can vouch for the "needing to add power" to get to the end of 33R in Boston. Plopping it on the numbers and adding max reverse was more of a first-timer's reaction to seeing such a relatively short runway from the front of a 1900, but really, such shennanigans weren't necessary. Land it just past the numbers and idle it, throw down some brakes, and you have no problems.

Now as for what a 1900 CAN do, well, I "heard a story" about *ahem* "SOMEONE" who did barber-pole to a four-mile final and managed to bring it to a dead stop in about 800 feet from the threshold. No pax and a decent headwind, so I am told, it can certainly be done.

 

[SDdriver]

Landed and stopped the old SH330 in 850ft, that was also with some freight onboard. Damm that thing will stop, really good brakes.

SD

 

[Cardinal]

Capthuff, I'm sorry, I'm a dolt. I had some Raytheon numbers on my machine the whole time. Here's what they have to say:

TOFL at 16000lb, Flaps 17, Standard Day, Sea Level:
Decision Speed 100 kias
Total Distance 3470ft

TOFL at 17120lb, Flaps 17, Standard Day, Sea Level:
Decision Speed 102 kias
Total Distance 3737ft

Landing Distance at 16765(MLW), Flaps Down, Zero Wind, Se Level:
Approach Speed 118 kias
Total Distance over 50ft obstacle 2800ft

Hope this helps, I'm really starting to miss this airplane.

 

[jsoceanlord]

whatever you do, don't land with your feet on the brakes (that's what my instructor told me about 5 times while on approach)

 

[Rank&File]

MGTOW 17,210?? When did that happen? Back when I flew those things it was 16,950.

 

[chperplt]

When did that happen?

A couple years ago I think.

 

[I.P. Freley]

17,210? It's actually 17, 120.

It must've happened in either late 2000 or early 2001, but I can't narrow it down any more than that.

Strangely it was an increase of one "standard" passenger. I'm sure that's just coincidence.