FLOPS 2 400a Flameouts

[HSDriver]

I was told by FLOPS that the planes were being flown up to 800 hrs a year.That is how the ownership works out--100 hours for a 1/8th share,200 for a 1/4

800 Managed hours a year. Thats not counting the repo legs every other trip and the empty legs flying accross the country to go to a maintenence base.

HS

 

[pamed19]

800 Managed hours a year. Thats not counting the repo legs every other trip and the empty legs flying accross the country to go to a maintenence base.

HS

Had not thought of those flights.What about the jet cards?They must have upped usage. I guess since we do not know what caused the flameouts,we do not know if usage is the culprit!

 

[guido411]

I do not want to look over the crews shoulders when I fly.Do the bunch of you think the 400a is safe to fly in or should I stop flying in it?Many,Many thanks

No offense, but my life is WAY more important to me than yours is. If the airplane isn't safe enough for ME to be in, I won't start the engines with YOU in the back. Ask any FLOPs crewmember and they will say the same thing. Sit back, relax, have a cocktail. Welcome aboard.

 

[guido411]

Had not thought of those flights.What about the jet cards?They must have upped usage. I guess since we do not know what caused the flameouts,we do not know if usage is the culprit!

The first flameout occured on a BRAND NEW BE400A. . .er, Hawker 400XP. Useage is NOT the culprit.

 

[ProFracPilot]

The first flameout occured on a BRAND NEW BE400A. . .er, Hawker 400XP. Useage is NOT the culprit.

I believe the term "usage", as discussed regarding the Hawker 400XP (nee, Beechjet), refers more to operational issues that may arise after much "fleet use". If by the term "useage", your meaning is as it relates to "time in service" of a single airframe or set of engines, then I agree with your opinion that total time has absolutely nothing to do with the flameouts. However, FlOps has amassed much more fleet "useage" over a wide range of operating conditions than any other Beechjet operator. I believe that when the research is completed, it will be found that there is a narrow set of operating conditions (power reduction at altitude, OAT, ambient moisture content, etc) where these engines - as installed on the Beechjet - are susceptible to this anomoly.

And no, I'm not an engineer. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...

 

[pamed19]

No offense, but my life is WAY more important to me than yours is. If the airplane isn't safe enough for ME to be in, I won't start the engines with YOU in the back. Ask any FLOPs crewmember and they will say the same thing. Sit back, relax, have a cocktail. Welcome aboard.

Good thought and good advice.Flops crews are great and I have met alot of them.Pleased to fly with them anytime,rain or shine.

 

[dime line]

Hey Pamed19 just remember if your thinking about another Frac, they all do the same thing as Flight Opts with reguard to flying the hell out of the planes.

 

[RNObased]

I certainly will not correct you.I am just a worried passenger!What can I do to make sure the sumping has been done?many thanks

Worried me so much I switched fleets.... hate the 400/beechjunk, the thing is a systems mess. Raytheon should have let this thing die years ago. Now I hear they are going to put proline 21 on it. Like putting a dress on a pig.

 

[dime line]

"Worried me so much I switched fleets"

You mean you upgraded? Payraise?

 

[AceCrackshot]

Worried me so much I switched fleets.... hate the 400/beechjunk, the thing is a systems mess. Raytheon should have let this thing die years ago.

I'm no huge Beechjet booster, but I do believe that this overstates the case by a order of magitude. If you look at 1) the overall fleet safety record and 2) Its general reliability, you have a pretty good aircraft.

The systems are perhaps a little complex, but nothing overwhelming (the fuel and electric come to mind immediately) but both are practically speaking transparent to the crew.

The Beechjet needs:
1) Fuel Heaters
2) Reclinable/more ergonomic pilot seats
3) Larger engines
4) Pro Line 21
5) 18-36" of cabin streach
6) an externally serviceable lav

All these (except 5) are pretty low hanging fruit, if Raytheon could develop and certify derivitives of existing airframes like Cessna can. For whatever reason, they can't, and we are stuck with an aircraft that was probably state of the art in the first Clinton Administration.

We could also use salesmen who would stop telling people that this "Hawker" can do what an actual Hawker can do, mission-wise.

 

[dime line]

Was told in school 2 weeks ago, that adding fuel heaters probably will not happen any time soon because Raytheon would be admitting there is a problem. Just what I heard

 

[AceCrackshot]

Was told in school 2 weeks ago, that adding fuel heaters probably will not happen any time soon because Raytheon would be admitting there is a problem

I don't doubt it. Litigation driven aviation is a bummer. My issue is that during winter, north of the Mason-Dixon line, you can bump into -40 fuel after about an hour and half at altitude. Especially if the fuel lived in a truck before your airplane. Its happened to me a few times, on longer legs.

As far as the flameouts go, I'm personally starting to lean towards a engine driven cause, and as was noted earlier, we might never know the cause...

My biggest heartburn on the flameout thing is the sneaking suspicion I have that the USAF knows more than its saying. There have been hints dropped, but they get all secret-squirrelly when pressed. Everyone loves to play "I've got a secret."

 

[WabiSabi]

Was told in school 2 weeks ago, that adding fuel heaters probably will not happen any time soon because Raytheon would be admitting there is a problem. Just what I heard

it has more to do with P&W than Raytheon. i met a P&W engineer that was working with NetJets to come up with a fuel heater. it's already in progress.

 

[ProFracPilot]

it has more to do with P&W than Raytheon. i met a P&W engineer that was working with NetJets to come up with a fuel heater. it's already in progress.

With all due respect, if it was a cold fuel issue flameouts would be occurring with greater frequency. We would also see flameouts in other aircraft that use the JT15D or a derivative, and lastly it wouldn't be limited to just dual flameouts. P&WC isn't working with just NetJets to come up with a fuel heater, but with several operators to determine a definitive cause so that a true fix can be implemented. The most plausible theory thus far suggests that in certain ambient conditions, there is first stage stator ice accretion (possible if this engine / airframe installation is raising the temp of the inlet air at altitude). This, combined with the airflow changes that occur with power reduction and engine/wing interference at top of descent can cause the engines to burp and flameout. This theory has generated a procedure requiring engine A/I and ignition on at TOD. It is not a definitive fix, but thus far there has not been a flameout in an aircraft utilizing this procedure.

Engine flameout issues in corporate turbojet aircraft are not unheard of. Anyone with experience in CJ610 or CF700 powered airplanes (think 20 series Lear or Falcon 20) know that both have been known to have engine flameouts at altitude. Sometimes it was just the Main Fuel Control (MFC) units that needed tweaking. Falcon pilots know that operationally you NEVER just flipped both engine anti-ice systems to the "OFF" position - to do so was just asking to practice the "Dual Engine Failure in Flight" and "Engine Airstart" checklists.

Pamed19 - Your greatest travel risk - Beechjet or no Beechjet - continues to be your drive to and from the airport.

 

[ToTheStars]

The aircraft was certificated by the FAA. Raytheon and Pratt will do nothing until the FAA starts talking about an emergency AD that would ground the vehicle or limit its environmental & performance capabilities (flight into visible moisture, alititude, and temperature limits). There is a 'smoking gun', but it will require actual flight test with instrumentation. No one wants to pay for it and no one wants the answer because of the impact to the operators.

The best advice is to keep your fuel temperature as warm as possible, minimize long duration high altitude flight (above FL350), use your ignitors prior to power reduction from high altitude, very gently remove power from high altitude descents, and keep a watchful eye on the FBO fuel truck for appropriate use of Prist.

Most importantly, when your at Flight Safety and Simuflight, learn how to fly the vehicle from initial power reduction at altitude, down an ILS without ever touching the power levers! Learn those speeds to fly to nail the approach and what configurations to use & when!!!

 

[RNObased]

I'm no huge Beechjet booster, but I do believe that this overstates the case by a order of magitude. If you look at 1) the overall fleet safety record and 2) Its general reliability, you have a pretty good aircraft.

We could also use salesmen who would stop telling people that this "Hawker" can do what an actual Hawker can do, mission-wise.

Maybe it was overstated, however that fact remains that jet is a bit of a mess. There are so many silly things on it that I don't even want to get into it. Beside the fact that no one knows why the engines flame out, or no one is talking.

I heard that Pratt would love for this jet to go away so that the engine on it could die. It is a fuel hog and is under powered above a takeoff altitude of say 3500'.

Defend it if you want, the fact remains it is selling lilke crap at NJA and that some of the people who buy it feel like they have been lied to about what it will do. Which is never good...

 

[pamed19]

very helpful info

Many thanks to all.I have learned alot.

 

[dime line]

""Maybe it was overstated, however that fact remains that jet is a bit of a mess""


Sounds like YOUR opinion, not your experience!!


""I heard that Pratt would love for this jet to go away so that the engine on it could die. It is a fuel hog and is under powered above a takeoff altitude of say 3500'. ""

I really don't think you fly a BeechJet. And ask Cessna how they feel about their P&W JT-15D-5,......check that out, the same engine in the BeechJet...

""the fact remains it is selling lilke crap at NJA and that some of the people who buy it feel like they have been lied """

No $#it, your sales people sold the Beechjet as a "Replacement" for the Ultra, the only upgrade is speed that is it. I've been flying the BJ for 7 yrs now and our owners love the plane. But the key is our owners know how to pack for this plane, unlike the Ultra which everybody knows has more baggage room.

Oh and ""some of the people who buy it feel like they have been lied to about what it will do""

Dude, were talking sales people here, If there being lied to that isn't Raytheons fault, you need to look in your own house. Do you, for one minute, think you sales people are different from any-others.

 

[RNObased]

""Maybe it was overstated, however that fact remains that jet is a bit of a mess""


Sounds like YOUR opinion, not your experience!!


""I heard that Pratt would love for this jet to go away so that the engine on it could die. It is a fuel hog and is under powered above a takeoff altitude of say 3500'. ""

I really don't think you fly a BeechJet. And ask Cessna how they feel about their P&W JT-15D-5,......check that out, the same engine in the BeechJet...

""the fact remains it is selling lilke crap at NJA and that some of the people who buy it feel like they have been lied """

No $#it, your sales people sold the Beechjet as a "Replacement" for the Ultra, the only upgrade is speed that is it. I've been flying the BJ for 7 yrs now and our owners love the plane. But the key is our owners know how to pack for this plane, unlike the Ultra which everybody knows has more baggage room.

Oh and ""some of the people who buy it feel like they have been lied to about what it will do""

Dude, were talking sales people here, If there being lied to that isn't Raytheons fault, you need to look in your own house. Do you, for one minute, think you sales people are different from any-others.

Dime Line,
Think what you want, I flew the POS and hated every minute of it.

Also genius that engine is different then the one on the Cessnas, better fuel burn more thrust. The dash makes all the difference. If you would have flown something besides the Beechjunk you would know that. The statement about the engines came directly from a Pratt rep.

I thank god, that I work for a company that has enough different types of jet that I'm not stuck in that thing.

The issue with the sales guy's lying is that it always comes back on the pilots.

Fly the thing for another 7 years, I don't care. I won't be. Defend it if you want, in my world it is a POS.

 

[dime line]

Sure RNO whatever you say