beechjet

[Rick1128]

As for 135, there are several being operated under that Part. As for landing distance, that is the distance that most Lear operators draw the line anyway. High performance jets require longer runways.

 

[Kingairrick]

Our Cl-604 takes less runway under 135....just something to watch out for. My .02.

 

[Rick1128]

You are starting to talk about a totally different airplane. The two aircraft were designed with different criteria. The 604 is a top of the line corporate barge. The Beechjet was a low end jet designed to compete with the Citations and Lear 31.

The Beech does not have leading edge devices. They increase the cost of the aircraft greatly. Plus increase the empty weight of the aircraft. All aircraft are compromises.

My biggest concerns about the Beech is the single tires. Down in my area, it is not uncommon to see Citations and Beechjets, slowly sinking into the pavement on a hot summers day.

 

[capt_zman]

we fly 135 on raytheon's certificate, as well as 9 others on the certificate. then there's charterops with 3 and talon air with a couple more.

so i know of 17 beechjets currently flying 135, and someone suggested not to even think about it???

5000 ft is a good rule of thumb, but what other jet is going to operate out of less than 5000 in a 135 environment?

 

[Rick1128]

Well the Falcon 50.

 

[capt_zman]

Good point with the Falcon. For its class though, the beechjet is really a good option.

Flew with a Raytheon sales rep last night, said all new beechjets are sold out until next april. They must be doing something right.

 

[unclematty]

Thanks for all the info folks. Looks like it was all for nothing. Anyone need a 135 currnet capt. for a BE-200???

 

[GVFlyer]

Beechjet

I did a closed- loop handlings quality evaluation of the 400A for the military. I did not like the manner in which the spoilerons dimenished stall and single- engine capabilities, nor the yaw dampner that could not completely compensate for the jet's inherent dutch role characteristics. The airplane has a slow roll rate and turns slowly. Interior volume is good as is ground handling. You can't fill the seats and the fuel tanks. The powerplants are adequate. I think the Air Force selected it for TTBS because of it's ponderous handling characteristics which closely replicate a C-141.

I'd pick a Cessna for this application.

GV