Lear 31A

[stratman560]

Hey guys. Just wondering what the fuel burn numbers are on the Lear 31A. Thanks. Also, things to look out for in the 31 line. AD's, SB's, etc.

Thanks.

 

[sydeseet]

I loved flying that airplane. I would give anything to "have one in my garage" so to speak. The best hand flying airplane I ever flew, hands down.

Now about your questions. Sorry but I don't remember fuel burns that well but recall using 1400 for the first hour, followed by 1000 per hour thereafter if you were up in the mid 40's which is where you need to be get 3+ hours out of a tank of gas. We could make it from the mid-atlantic area to DFW 95% of the time if you managed things correctly and got good climbs and descents. I remember making it home from Denver in 3:20 and landing with a little less than an hour's worth of gas.

Have fun!!!

 

[jergbsn]

I loved flying that airplane. I would give anything to "have one in my garage" so to speak. The best hand flying airplane I ever flew, hands down.

Great Airplane to Hand Fly,,, I agree.

We use 1400 the first hour then, 1200, 1000. Maybe 1500 if your down low for an hour trip.

We've got the raisbeck locker, if that makes a difference.

 

[bbond]

I agree about the best hand flying airplane. Hand flew at FL470 and never even acted up. Numbers are very close on the other guys fuel burns. 3.5 hours you better be VFR and have the gear hangin out and on short final. Needed more gas and baggage space, but overall I loved that airplane. Have fun, you'll love the performance.

 

[ABurgh]

I think I always used 1500 then 1000. Got it up to FL510 a while ago after a few previous failed attempts. Awesome airplane.

 

[Count Dracula]

We use similar numbers for fuel burn. CLT-DAL, no alternate, VMC upon arrival normally landing with around 1000lbs. If the winds are tight, we ask ATC on the ground if they can work out an uninterrupted climb to FL 400 if possible. Then request PD descent and sip as long as possible. Any weather out there and we just plan on a fuel stop. Good airplane, just way too small, but economical. I've flown the ER version with the additional 600lbs of fuel makes a big difference if normally light on bags.

 

[WMUSIGPI]

We generally planned on about 1500 first hour then 1100/1000/Find a gas station. But that was also operating in the Northeast where unrestricted climbs were rare. We would do Pittsburgh area to Miami area all winter no problems. Usually took off within 300 of max weight and climbed right on up to 430, at the one hour mark we asked for 450. Never did go any higer than that. The captain wasn't comfortable with the thought of a depressurization above 450.... Gotta agree with the lack of baggage and the lack of baggage door. We routinely filled the compartment then had to start belting bags on open seats. Not fun in Florida in the summer.
Nicest plane I have ever flown except it can't compare to the roominess of the Avro. I'd put it in the top of it's size class for sure.

 

[Lead Sled]

Personally, I never thought the 31 made much sense. (Although I've never flown one, I've got about 3K hours in 35s.) Granted they'll go high, but from what I've read and heard if you want near 31 performance out of a 35 all you have to do is fly a 35 at 31 weights.

Were we really got a performance increase was when we went from operating the 35 to an Astra. The Astra uses Garrett -3s vs. the Lears -2s so you had a little more thrust per side (200 lbs) and the fuel burn was slightly higher but the performance was an order of magnatude higher - appproximately 2.5 times more cabin volume, 20 knots faster, a good 1000 nm more range, and our operating costs dropped.

LS

 

[GVFlyer]

I did a closed loop handling qualities evaluation of the Lear 31 for my service when I was still in the military. It is essentially a Lear 35/36 fuselage mated to a Lear 28/29 Longhorn wing. While a satisfying airplane to hand-fly, contrary to what some have said, it's control harmony is not that good and pitch forces change with velocity.

The real issue with the jet is that it has no range. Bombardier claims 1455 nm, but I think that 1300 nm is more realistic. If you are going to get anywhere at all, you have to fly it like CJ610 Lear, that is to say in a parabolic arc.

How much money do you have to spend?


GV

 

[LJ45]

The real issue with the jet is that it has no range. Bombardier claims 1455 nm, but I think that 1300 nm is more realistic.

GV

That's not enough range for an entry level jet? Many current jets have that approximate range, like the: BE400, CJ, Premier etc..

 

[sydeseet]

Exactly. I flew a Lear 24 & 25 prior to the 31A and the fuel management mentality is the same in all three. Fuel is always a concern if the leg is greater than two hours and you absolutely must make it into the 40's to go anywhere. A delayed climb or early descent is a potential disaster or diversion in the making.

Control harmony? Huh? You engineers are all the same...... It is a blast to fly for 180 minutes at a time, no question about it.

 

[LJ45]

also...The 31a has one of the finest autopilots...The Learjet 45 Honeywell autopilot is pathetic compared to the KFC3100.

 

[GVFlyer]

also...The 31a has one of the finest autopilots...The Learjet 45 Honeywell autopilot is pathetic compared to the KFC3100.

I'm familiar with that autopilot. It was deveolped by famed Kentuckian Colonel Sanders and comes with two sides.



GV

 

[Lead Sled]

I'm familiar with that autopilot. It was deveolped by famed Kentuckian Colonel Sanders and comes with two sides.

Also, you can choose between original and extra crispy - maybe not a good thing when it comes to avionics.

 

[Lead Sled]

Exactly. I flew a Lear 24 & 25 prior to the 31A and the fuel management mentality is the same in all three. Fuel is always a concern if the leg is greater than two hours and you absolutely must make it into the 40's to go anywhere.

That may not be a bad thing - I don't know anyone who can endure a 20 or 30 series Lear cockpit for much more than 2 hours anyway.

The 35 was the exact opposite - the only fuel concerns we ever had was the occassional concern with maximum landing weight on some of our shorter hops.

The problem with all of the 30 series Lears is that they're getting a little long in the tooth now. In their day they were pretty cutting edge,but how far can you take 1950's technology? For Pete's sake, straight-wing Citations are essentially just as fast and a whole lot easier to live with on a day to day basis.

LS

 

[frog_flyer]

In their day they were pretty cutting edge,but how far can you take 1950's technology?

Ask the USAF.

 

[Lead Sled]

Ask the USAF.

Bombardier ain't the USAF.

 

[GVFlyer]

I really like the Lear 35A, Sled.

When I was assigned to Headquarters U.S. European Command in Stuttgart Germany, our Area of Responsibility (AOR) was from The Hebrides, to the Azores to the Horn of Africa, throughout the Mideast and up to Moscow as our Eastern boundary. We had three C-21As, the military variant of the Lear 35A, and they were perfect for our mission. We never had to sweat fuel.

The fuel dump is a nice feature as well. Under our rules, we could file to a destination below minimums as long as we had two alternates above minimums. We frequently did so and would pack fuel on accordingly. When it became apparent that we would make in in to our destination, it was not uncommon for us to be coming down through 15,000 feet streaming fuel from both tip tanks to get down to landing weight.

We had a kick-ass tactical program where we got to do low-level high speed navigation, overhead approaches, pop-up approaches, high performance take-offs riding the burble and so forth.

We could fill the seats, put 6,238 lbs of fuel in the tanks and go 1,850 nm as a no-brainer. At my follow-on assignment at Andrews AFB, with a little actual planning I've flown the jet from Washington DC to San Francisco.

If I hit Powerball today, I'll have a late model Lear 36A in my garage tomorrow. I could go anyplace on Earth in the jet and still have the capability to roll it like a little acrobat.


GV

 

[CRAZY LEGS]

I really like the Lear 35A, Sled.

We could fill the seats, put 6,238 lbs of fuel in the tanks and go 1,850 nm as a no-brainer. At my follow-on assignment at Andrews AFB, with a little actual planning I've flown the jet from Washington DC to San Francisco.


very true. can' t think of another light jet that can do that.

and you can pick a nice 35 up for around 2 million, the price of a VLJ.

whats the powerball up to? cash option for me

 

[2dumb2drive]

We could fill the seats, put 6,238 lbs of fuel in the tanks and go 1,850 nm as a no-brainer. At my follow-on assignment at Andrews AFB, with a little actual planning I've flown the jet from Washington DC to San Francisco.

GV

As someone that occasionally flys a 35a i would like to know how this was accomplished. Straight line from ADW to SFO is 2124 nm. Going west ive never seen anything close to this, even high and pulled back. Curious as to what alt, what mach, what you landed with, and flight time. If you recall, thanks.

 

[Lead Sled]

I have fond memories of the time I spent in the 35 as well. It is a good airplane and it was a blast to hand fly. What I don't miss is the cramped cockpit, the baggage issues, the fuel bubbles in the wing, the fogged up windshields, the cold feet, and the small cabin. Other than that, it was pretty near perfect.

I point was (is) that the Lears were built using the best technology that money could buy back in the late '50s and early 60's. The fact that they are still viable after nearly 40 years is a testiment to the genius of the original design.

That being said, they are getting long in the tooth. Earlier, I mentioned the IAI Astra. That airframe was designed using 1980's technology. With that technology came the ability to fly about 1000 nm further, 20 ktas + faster, in a cabin approximately 2.5 larger using engines that develop just 200 pounds more thrust each.

The Lear always has been and always will be one of my favorite airplanes, but like I said earlier, there are other airplanes out there that are much easier to live with on a day-to-day basis.

The original thread was about the 31. IMHO, it's little more than a 35 with fuel imposed limitations in addition to all of the others that are inherant with the airframe. If I were in the market for a 30 series Lear I would be looking for the latest s/n 35 that I could find and go have a ball flying it. I'd just hope that I would never have to sit in the beast for more that about 3 hours and that we never had to carry more than about 4 passengers.

LS