Is Beechjet a POS?

[Choppy]

Our company i looking at a Beechjet to supplement our shorter trips so we don't have to take the Challenger and eat up gas. The one we are looking at weighs 11000 BOW and by my calc. you can only go about 1:15 with full pax at max TO weight. That's using 30 min to alternate and 45 min thereafter! Am I missing something? At the end of hour one you only have about 2300 lbs aboard. I would like to be at my destination in hard IFR with 2000 lbs. Are there any good points?

 

[girlsandbeer]

Ours has a bow of about 11000 as well and with full pax the range is quite limited. However, putting full pax in a beechjet is not something youll see too often and theres no chance in hell youll do it with baggage. We regularly carry 2-4 folks and bags which keeps you with nearly full tanks. Also, 2000#'s of go-go is a pretty generous reserve... my book says at 14000# and 10000' ISA you get 1384 #/hr. It does handle like a truck, but overall its fairly fuel efficient so for shorter range stuff with a few guys on its ok. Youre just not gonna load up the people and carry full fuel like you can with some bigger stuff... guess you get what you pay for. Avionics are pretty nice and the cockpit is laid out in a pilot friendly manner.

 

[girlsandbeer]

oh ya, and there is a bunch of them on the market so you could probably swing a pretty good deal. dunno if you could resell it though

 

[flyer172r]

putting full pax in a beechjet is not something youll see too often and theres no chance in hell youll do it with baggage.

Well I put 7 pax (six seats, one sitting on the lav seat) with baggage into a Beechjet. One guy brought these two huge old-school suitcases with him, don't ask how we crammed it all in there. I don't think I could do it all again if I tried. You can usually figure on about a 1:30-2 hour flight with decent reserves if you're taking full pax. That was my experience at least, I'm sure a few more experienced guys will come on here and tell me I'm an idiot.

You said it was to supplement shorter trips, what's a short trip for you? Beechjets are great for trips around 500-600 nm. I wish it had ailerons but other than that I enjoyed it.

 

[X man]

flyer172r
You would be an idiot if after takeoff, something really bad happened, and it effected you and everyone on the aircraft. Sometimes it is called experience, an experience that you would not really want to try again, after you got away with it. You save those for later so that maybe you don't end up as a statistic. Kind of like running really low on fuel but you made it. Nobody has done that, right.

Good Luck

 

[Flying Illini]

If you want a great flying aircraft, go for a Falcon 10...it has ailerons!

 

[iLR60Mac]

Lear 40. We are about to add a 40 to out hangar. We have the same dilima. A 604 which works great for our long legs. We needed something for our 400nm or less trips. We ordered a lear 40 last week.

 

[flyer172r]

flyer172r
You would be an idiot if after takeoff, something really bad happened, and it effected you and everyone on the aircraft. Sometimes it is called experience, an experience that you would not really want to try again, after you got away with it. You save those for later so that maybe you don't end up as a statistic. Kind of like running really low on fuel but you made it. Nobody has done that, right.

Good Luck

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, but in no way was I trying to say I ever suceeded in pushing my luck with fuel, nor would I ever encourage anyone else to try something like that.

And real men don't need ailerons

 

[SabreFlyR]

If you want a great flying aircraft, go for a Falcon 10...it has ailerons!

We don't need no stinking ailerons, that's why it has an autopilot.

 

[BoilerUP]

The 400A would be great with 3200# of thrust per side and another 500-1000lbs of fuel. I got so tired of it turning into a pig in the low to mid 30s that I went to fly a CRJ that way I'd really know what an airplane with no climb performance flies like :laugh:


As for the location where flyer172r was flying a Beechjet at MTOW from, lets just say an Aspen-like second segment is not required. Even if he canned one at V1 or had a TR deploy, the airplane would have had plenty of performance to get airborne, troubleshoot, and come back around. Airplanes are made to fly at MTOW, and as long as the perf data, pilot experience and common sense says it'll perform, its FINE.

 

[Flyerjosh]

flyer172r
You would be an idiot if after takeoff, something really bad happened, and it effected you and everyone on the aircraft. Sometimes it is called experience, an experience that you would not really want to try again, after you got away with it. You save those for later so that maybe you don't end up as a statistic. Kind of like running really low on fuel but you made it. Nobody has done that, right.

Good Luck

That's awfully presumptuous of you X man... what about flyer172r's post implies anything unsafe? I've loaded up my Citation with 8 people and baggage and flown 1:30 and have plenty of reserves. It's certainly not comfy for the poor sod that has to sit on the lav sideways (particularly if there's baggage in the lav "closet"), but it's perfectly legal and within limits.

 

[h25b]

That's awfully presumptuous of you X man... what about flyer172r's post implies anything unsafe? I've loaded up my Citation with 8 people and baggage and flown 1:30 and have plenty of reserves. It's certainly not comfy for the poor sod that has to sit on the lav sideways (particularly if there's baggage in the lav "closet"), but it's perfectly legal and within limits.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, but in no way was I trying to say I ever suceeded in pushing my luck with fuel, nor would I ever encourage anyone else to try something like that.

And real men don't need ailerons

The idea that you might not understand what he's getting at speaks volumes...

I don't think he was talking about any performance or weight/balance issues, it was probably the idea that if your cabin was full of improperly placed crap you and/or your passengers might have had a challenging time trying to exit a smoking/burning aircraft...

Personally, packing stuff in such a way as to guarantee that you'll be able to get out of the aircraft is just as important (if not more) than whether or not your performance numbers are perfectly accurate.

On the other note, to answer the original question.... YES, the Beechjet (I refuse to call it a Hawker as not to offend the British) is a POS.

 

[Flyerjosh]

I get ya.... but doesn't it have a baggage compartment? I guess I just presumed that those two bags went in there... (See what presuming/assuming does?) My bad if that was the case. I totally agree with the whole evac thing.

 

[flyer172r]

The idea that you might not understand what he's getting at speaks volumes...

I don't think he was talking about any performance or weight/balance issues, it was probably the idea that if your cabin was full of improperly placed crap you and/or your passengers might have had a challenging time trying to exit a smoking/burning aircraft...

Personally, packing stuff in such a way as to guarantee that you'll be able to get out of the aircraft is just as important (if not more) than whether or not your performance numbers are perfectly accurate.

On the other note, to answer the original question.... YES, the Beechjet (I refuse to call it a Hawker as not to offend the British) is a POS.

I was referring to how things were placed (by placed I mean crammed) in the aft compartment. I probably should've made that a little more clear. I never placed anything in the cabin in a location where it would've interfered in an emergency evac. I did once strap a cello across the backseats, securely fastened and behind all the passengers. And I meant that people would probably "call me an idiot" over my statement on endurance with a full pax load.

If it'll make you feel better, next time I'll think through a few more interpretations of what the word "it" followed by a comment on running low on fuel means in peoples' posts before my simple-thinking, regional pilot for the time being, mind decides to ask for clarification on what point someone was trying to make. Does that speak volumes enough for you or would you like to insult my intelligence a little more?

 

[h25b]

I probably should've made that a little more clear.

That's what I'm here for... Any time...

 

[BoilerUP]

I think you were crystal clear, flyer - some people are just a bit too presumptious...

 

[thatpilotguy]

I have some time in the Beechjet. We flew the new Hawker 400XP version. Don't let the name change fool you. It is the same plane, however there is an increase in max take off weight. The modifcation is really a paper change that I think most Beechjets are capable of doing, but don't hold me to that.

I have also flown the Citation Ultra. With regards to aircraft capability I think the Citation has the Beechjet beat. There are numerous pro's and con's with each. I hated the boots on the Citation, but like the ability to have a forward and aft baggage compartment. The Beechjet has superior avionics compared to the Citation. Range was a push. The Citation is a better "hot and high" airplane, and is much more comfortable in a cross wind. The cabin in the Beechjet is more comfortable in my opinion.

What I can say about both aircraft is that neither one had any real "got-cha's." No weird maintenace items or re-occuring write-ups. Both did their respective jobs well. I would fly either one again.

 

[400A]

I have some time in the Beechjet. We flew the new Hawker 400XP version. Don't let the name change fool you. It is the same plane, however there is an increase in max take off weight. The modifcation is really a paper change that I think most Beechjets are capable of doing, but don't hold me to that.

I have also flown the Citation Ultra. With regards to aircraft capability I think the Citation has the Beechjet beat. There are numerous pro's and con's with each. I hated the boots on the Citation, but like the ability to have a forward and aft baggage compartment. The Beechjet has superior avionics compared to the Citation. Range was a push. The Citation is a better "hot and high" airplane, and is much more comfortable in a cross wind. The cabin in the Beechjet is more comfortable in my opinion.

What I can say about both aircraft is that neither one had any real "got-cha's." No weird maintenace items or re-occuring write-ups. Both did their respective jobs well. I would fly either one again.

I second pilot guys assesment. I have flown them both as well. For our owner it was a cabin issue. He is quite tall, and in the Ultra/Encore cabin, even with his seat side tracked his head was on the ceiling. I also think that the 400A rides MUCH better in turb. 320Kt VMO also comes in handy blending with traffic in high density areas.

Pilot guy is also correct about the 400XP. The weight change was actually in effect on the last few 400A's. The name change was only a Raytheon game so the Hawker salesmen could sell the Beechjet. It is still type certificated a BE-40.

 

[400A]

On the other note, to answer the original question.... YES, the Beechjet (I refuse to call it a Hawker as not to offend the British) is a POS.

I could not disagree more. We are on our second 400A and they both have been great airplanes. Passengers love them. Ours has been very reliable. Even our Diamond that we had before the Beechjets was very reliable. Though underpowered.

 

[400A]

The 400A would be great with 3200# of thrust per side and another 500-1000lbs of fuel. .

I agree, It would be an awesome airplane.