Question for Lear 35/Citation II drivers

[Lead Sled]

I know of at least one instance where a drag chute saved a crews life. When they had to do a high speed abort going out of MDW. I don't think they are a waste. There is nothing else sitting up there in the hell hole anyways. Sure you have to get it repacked every so often but its nice to know its there. That being said we didn't have one on the last 35 I flew, its not a must have item but its nice its there.

I forget now the repack interval, but it never ceased to amaze me how those guys could pack that big chute into that coffee can sized container. We popped ours once - we had the perfect combination of repack due, mechanics available on site, dry runway, winds straight the runway, and perfect planetary alignment. I don't know what I was expecting, but we sure didn't get much - just a gentle (very gentle) deceleration. Like T/Rs, the slower you got the less effective they become. By the time you slow to 70 or 80 knots you can't even feel it. (That's why they work so well on military aircraft - their approach speed are much higher and chutes work well at those speeds.) You'd have to have one heck of a long runway for them to make any difference at all. Additionally, you have to be very careful not to snag them on things like runway lights, signage, etc. They're certainly not something that you're going to use on every flight. That's probably why you don't see them offered on new airplanes. All in all, not having a drag chute on a Lear wouldn't be a show stopper.

'Sled

 

[Lead Sled]

LOL! Someone once gave me a description of a Learjet as being the most expensive homebuilt on the market for this very reason. It's been said that when Bill Lear had an idea in his head for something, he'd just go find an airplane on the assembly line to try it out.

There is a funny story about why the early model Learjets had their GPU plugs installed on the fuselage at an angle. It seems that one day Bill Lear tried to taxi off with the GPU still attached. By the time he noticed that he was dragging a power cart down the ramp he had done some very expensive damage to the airplane. His fix? He had the power recepticle mounted at an angle, on production airplanes, so when a pilot taxied out the angle of the plug allowed it to pull itself out. Ahhh the genius that was Bill Lear.

I had some one tell me that Lears had the best technology that money could buy - in 1958. That may be true, but they are still great airplanes and certainly can get the job done.

'Sled

 

[MNR]

funny story about that drag chute...well maybe not so funny but one of those "Fate is the Hunter" things...

The company had a guy who as a parachute packer. So every Friday he would blow the chute. During the weekend he would repack it to keep himself current and make sure they all worked. He had that paticular aircraft.

About 2 weeks later the other crew out of MDW had that aircraft. They had just had some maint. done on the elevator. Apparently the Mx guys had used the wrong greese on the spots that were important. The crew did a flight control check before taking the runway. Things worked fine. They accelerated and went to rotate. No go. The elevator wouldn't move. Apperantly the elevator had froze solid because of the lubricant that had been used, worng kind or something like that. So they aborted well past V1. Nothing else they could do. This is at MDW mind you not SLN. The drag chute saved 'em. They swear to this day if not for the drag chute they would have been doing urban renewal at the corner of Central and 55th.

Oh, here is the kicker. when the guy who regularly repacked the chutes pulled the chute two weeks previous is came out as a block of ice. It had frozen solid in the hell hole.

I know it sounds like the stuff of urban legend but apperantly its true.

 

[Lead Sled]

funny story about that drag chute...well maybe not so funny but one of those "Fate is the Hunter" things...

The company had a guy who as a parachute packer. So every Friday he would blow the chute. During the weekend he would repack it to keep himself current and make sure they all worked. He had that paticular aircraft.

About 2 weeks later the other crew out of MDW had that aircraft. They had just had some maint. done on the elevator. Apparently the Mx guys had used the wrong greese on the spots that were important. The crew did a flight control check before taking the runway. Things worked fine. They accelerated and went to rotate. No go. The elevator wouldn't move. Apperantly the elevator had froze solid because of the lubricant that had been used, worng kind or something like that. So they aborted well past V1. Nothing else they could do. This is at MDW mind you not SLN. The drag chute saved 'em. They swear to this day if not for the drag chute they would have been doing urban renewal at the corner of Central and 55th.

Oh, here is the kicker. when the guy who regularly repacked the chutes pulled the chute two weeks previous is came out as a block of ice. It had frozen solid in the hell hole.

I know it sounds like the stuff of urban legend but apperantly its true.

Well... if you say so. It does have the smell of an "embellished" experience if you know what I mean. The crew did a flight control check before taking the runway and everything was working. They shortly there after tried to rotate and had a jammed elevator? It must have been one heck of a temperature drop for the lubricant to effect the elevator so quickly. One nice thing about Lear 20 and 30 series airplanes is they have some serious brakes. Even "well past V1" they have the ability to stop the airplane pretty quickly. There's no doubt that a chute added a certain percentage to their total braking capacity; but there's also no doubt that it contributed very little once the airplane slowed below 70 or 80 knots - which would have happened in pretty short order on brakes alone.

Also, they repacked the chute weekly? And had a chute frozen solid in the can? I find both of those statements a little hard to swallow - no one likes to do that much unnecessary work (And it is work packing the can - I helped our mechanics do it several times.) There is also the problem of the flimsy and expensive lids - they probably wouldn't hold up well during a repack cycle like that and someone would certainly say something when they got the bill for the replacements. I also find it hard to believe, if the above is indeed true, how enough moisture could migrate into the can to cause the chute to freeze in a week's time. Oh well, enough of that.

'Sled

 

[some_dude]

I always liked having the chute, especially on 35s without reversers. The non-reversed 35s seem to me to perform better at altitude, and the chute gave me peace of mind in the event of a hydraulic failure.

Of course, the only actual hydraulic failure I ever had was in a 25 with reversers and no drag chute, so what do I know?

With the Raisbeck locker the chute is removed, but with reversers I feel it's redundant anyway. But, as I said, I prefer the non-reversed airplanes.

 

[Rick1128]

The non-reverse 35 do perform better. The clear tailpipe allows this. The performance number in the AFM confirm this. The worst number are with teh Aeronca's. The Aeronca's are pneumatically operated and require a lot of TLC. Dee Howards are less maintenace intensive. Then again they are hydralicly operated. Big difference. A majority of my time is in non-reversed Lears and I prefer them that way. I have had few problems even during interesting runway conditions.

The Lear is not that difficult to fly. Much easier than a MU2 or Merlin/Metro. And the 35 is easier than the 20's.

And yes Bill would change things on the factory floor. But that only really happened on the earlier 20's. After Gates Rubber took over, it pretty much became a thing of the past. The 30's were acutaully fairly standard, considering how the 20's were.

And yes later is better. But it is also more expensive and doesn't always mean a better aircraft. While the 530 AP is better than the 200, I have noticed that after RVSM is installed in a 200 aircraft, the autopilot works much better. After all it is now getting digital information instead of analog plus better pitot/static information. About the only difference in the RVSM install between a 200 aircraft and a 530 is that the 200 aircraft requires a change of pitot tubes.

And corrosene is a problem. That is one of the reasons they require 12 yr and 12,000 hour inspections. but it does depend a great deal on the area of operation for a particular aircraft.

MSP. The 2B engines have an MPI of 1400 hours and the 2C have an MPI of 2100 hours. MSP costs go down with the 2C's. Plus a lot more omphh from the engines. Last I hears was Garrett would upgrade the engines from B's to C's for free if the aircraft was on MSP. Well worth it. You will find the change in performance quite interesting.

A big issue with the locker is the increased side area. It can make for interesting times in a cross wind. Delta fins are a very nice to have item. I have hand flown a 35 with them at FL390 with the yaw damper off and you didn't even feel the difference.

 

[Lead Sled]

The non-reverse 35 do perform better. The clear tailpipe allows this. The performance number in the AFM confirm this. The worst number are with the Aeronca's. The Aeronca's are pneumatically operated and require a lot of TLC. Dee Howards are less maintenance intensive. Then again they are hydraulically operated. Big difference. A majority of my time is in non-reversed Lears and I prefer them that way. I have had few problems even during interesting runway conditions.

No question that non-reversed airplanes have slightly better performance, but the difference is that - slight. I've flown all 3 variants and personally, I prefer a t/r equipped airplane; but then we were based off of an airport with a 5,000' runway and frequented airports that had runways as short as 4,000'. If I flew primarily off of longer (6,000'+) runways, I'd probably share your opinion. When it comes to the specific reversers themselves, Aeroncas actually allowed you a little more braking power - but they took slightly longer to deploy. The Dee Howards deployed a little faster and had more drag at "idle deploy", but you couldn't get on them as hard. When it comes to maintenance, it all depends upon who's doing it when it comes to the thrust reversers. Like I said, we had constant battles with ours until our mechanics got with a t/r guru who showed them how to adjust and lubricate them properly. Once we had them properly rigged and quit over-lubricating them ALL of the issues went away and they were 100% reliable. The problem out in the fleet is that there are a lot of high-time, clapped out freighters and charter airplanes whose mechanics don't really care, know how to rig and/or have the time to maintain them properly. Then when t/r the issues come up, their solution is found in the MEL and they are deactivated and pinned.

The Lear is not that difficult to fly. Much easier than a MU2 or Merlin/Metro. And the 35 is easier than the 20's.

True, but it's not the "turbojet powered 182" that the straight-winged Citations are either. I've never flown a Metro or Merlin, but I've got my share of time in MU-2s and the Lears are indeed much easier to fly.

And yes Bill would change things on the factory floor. But that only really happened on the earlier 20's. After Gates Rubber took over, it pretty much became a thing of the past. The 30's were actually fairly standard, considering how the 20's were.

I agree with what you wrote, with emphasis on the last sentence. For example, even the 35s have major differences in the electrical systems from early airplanes through the later serial numbers. The older airplanes can all be modified and up to essentially the same system as was found on the newer airplanes, but many haven't or only partially so.

And yes later is better. But it is also more expensive and doesn't always mean a better aircraft. While the 530 AP is better than the 200, I have noticed that after RVSM is installed in a 200 aircraft, the autopilot works much better. After all it is now getting digital information instead of analog plus better pitot/static information. About the only difference in the RVSM install between a 200 aircraft and a 530 is that the 200 aircraft requires a change of pitot tubes.

That sounds right. It's been a few years since I last flew a Lear and RVSM were just letters in the alphabet.

And corrosion is a problem. That is one of the reasons they require 12 yr and 12,000 hour inspections. but it does depend a great deal on the area of operation for a particular aircraft.

Issue? Yes, Problem? Can be; but like I said in my earlier post look for one recently (no more than 3 or 4 years) out of a 12 year performed by an experienced shop like Duncan Aviation or Weststar, then have a thorough pre-buy inspection performed by one of those shops and your chances of buying an airplane with problems is greatly reduced - no more than any other type.

'Sled

 

[Rick1128]

No question that non-reversed airplanes have slightly better performance, but the difference is that - slight. I've flown all 3 variants and personally, I prefer a t/r equipped airplane; but then we were based off of an airport with a 5,000' runway and frequented airports that had runways as short as 4,000'. If I flew primarily off of longer (6,000'+) runways, I'd probably share your opinion. When it comes to the specific reversers themselves, Aeroncas actually allowed you a little more braking power - but they took slightly longer to deploy. The Dee Howards deployed a little faster and had more drag at "idle deploy", but you couldn't get on them as hard. When it comes to maintenance, it all depends upon who's doing it when it comes to the thrust reversers. Like I said, we had constant battles with ours until our mechanics got with a t/r guru who showed them how to adjust and lubricate them properly. Once we had them properly rigged and quit over-lubricating them ALL of the issues went away and they were 100% reliable. The problem out in the fleet is that there are a lot of high-time, clapped out freighters and charter airplanes whose mechanics don't really care, know how to rig and/or have the time to maintain them properly. Then when t/r the issues come up, their solution is found in the MEL and they are deactivated and pinned.
True, but it's not the "turbojet powered 182" that the straight-winged Citations are either. I've never flown a Metro or Merlin, but I've got my share of time in MU-2s and the Lears are indeed much easier to fly.

I agree with what you wrote, with emphasis on the last sentence. For example, even the 35s have major differences in the electrical systems from early airplanes through the later serial numbers. The older airplanes can all be modified and up to essentially the same system as was found on the newer airplanes, but many haven't or only partially so.


That sounds right. It's been a few years since I last flew a Lear and RVSM were just letters in the alphabet.

Issue? Yes, Problem? Can be; but like I said in my earlier post look for one recently (no more than 3 or 4 years) out of a 12 year performed by an experienced shop like Duncan Aviation or Weststar, then have a thorough pre-buy inspection performed by one of those shops and your chances of buying an airplane with problems is greatly reduced - no more than any other type.

'Sled

Over the years I have operated and by that I mean not only flown, but also managed, supervised maintenance, purchased and approved the bills on almost 30 different Learjets. From 23s throught 36s. Only exception being 28s and 29s. But they are real oddballs. Each type jet seems to have a particular problem area when it comes to corrosion. For the Lears it always seems to be the center section and/or the tail cone. That is one of the reasons that they do a demate on a 12,000 hour inspection. I have had more than one Lear where they had to do a lot of cutting because of it. Prepurchase inspections don't always find it because of the location. It is usually found by x-ray only. Usually because of cost no-one will request that intensive of a prepurchase inspection. It has ben my experience that aircraft that have been primarily based in hot humid climates are much more likely to have corrosion. Especially near salt water.

I have actually found a big different in performance between t/r and non-t/r aircraft. The non-t/r aircraft seem to be able to get 1,000 to 2,000 feet higher on initial climb and climb higher earlier. Checking my current checklist, it shows that a non-t/r aircraft N1 limit anywhere from 1/2 to 2 percent higher, depending on the altitude, temperature and type t/r. For me, fuel burn has always been less in a non-t/r aircraft. These may not sound like a lot, but over time they will add up. And yes the Aeronca's have to be properly setup and maintained. But I have found them to be maintenance intensive compared to the Dee Howards. Plus they also weight 3 to 400 pounds more.

A couple of suggestions. To get a solid aircraft, I personally would ignore the paint and interior. Those items are easily fixed. I know. The boss wants to use his new toy right away. It might help to build that into the program. Give it that new airplane smell,. Well, sort of. With the changes in airspace that will be coming along in the next couple of years, if the aircraft has a GNS-X series or UNS-1M FMS, plan on replacing it/them. They will basicly become boat anchors over the next few years. UNS-1L would be a good starting place. If the price seems a little stiff, then KLN-90B or better are also options.