Now I know the aircraft is still relatively young, but since Beechcraft is no longer producing the 1900's, what will take it's place when it comes time for fleet updates? I cant think of any 18ish seat, Twin turboprop that could fit right in to the role. suggestions? The new 8's are bigger, and the kingair is not a standup cabin (in the 1900D's case). With lots of 1900's in Canada (Check the Wikipedia page like every other operator is Canadian ) thought it may be a question worth asking... even if realistically it does not need an answer for a while
The current EFIS package is no longer supported and parts are running out = a proline avionics upgrade or other costly options required.
My guess is an updated 1900D but hopefully they will remove the rocketship performance to lower operating costs. It is not needed in most scenarios as the aircraft is used for longer pavement to pavement runways, 150 mile stage lengths in it's main market (the USA) where it generally flys low (mid teens) and slow (reduced a/s speed for flow into ORD, ATL, EWR, LAX, etc).
There are more than enough current D's out there to cover the small markets like Canada's north for a long time. We still run Metro 3's and 23 up here and will for at least another 10 years so the 1900D should have 20 years left here.
PS Get rid of those stupid winglets.
to the op, there's enough airframes out there to last a while. there isn't much growth in the tier 3 market, and most operators buying those size airplanes won't pay the price for new, anyways, so I imagine the current Metro/1900/J31 airframes will float around for a while yet.
but it's a very expensive airplane to operate (-67's love fuel
I had understood the D was extremely cheap to operate, even from the fuel standpoint. A very low per seat/mile cost. The only drawback with it was, as all planes of this size, it was difficult to get a minimum load size consistently
So I would be interested if you could explain in a bit of detail what you found was so expensive in the overall operating costs?
Funny thing about the crap on the back of the aircraft... The 1900 was initally developed under SFAR 41C. This was prior to the introduction of FAR part 23 commuter aircraft. This essentially allowed a jumbo sized KingAir... the KingAir 350 and the Beech 1900. There where limitations that where required to meet certification of SFAR 41C. One of which was that the aircraft had to be based on existing type certificates. In order to retain certification the wings and tail could not just be increased in size. They in fact are the same as the KingAir. However in order to have enough lateral stability with what is essentially a small tail they had to hang the crap off. That was allowed as opposed to re-designing the tail.wallypilot wrote:I think the winglets are the least of your worries...get rid of all that crap hanging off the back end!.
The 1900 is a hangar queen. Would you elaborate on that, not in any exceptions, but the general maintenance issues that qualify that statement. (lots of ADsSBs, for example and what they are.
The problem we have is getting through individual companys' experiences to get a general impression as some companies, for example could not keep a 152 servicable due to poor flying and bad maintenance. Others could keep just about anything servicable, like JAL or Quantus.
As a result I am asking for specifics..
With regard to fuel flow we could not substantiate the comparative numbers you stated for equal sized garrets.. They use less yes, but not that ratio I dont think, except in high altitude crusie legs. And when compared to the J31, for examplem the numbers we have so far is the J31 is far more expensive to maintain. In any event, there is much more than fuel involved here.
Knowledgable comments are apprecited, as well as facts not just conslusions being stated.
As to the new twin otter. Nice, but not pressurized. The pressurization is a go/no go item for us,
One thing you haven't mentioned was the greater loss of power at higher density altitudes restricting Payload due to WAT performance, the driftdown is another issue especially out west. As Far As MX, I have seen lots more work done on the wigglepig, and lawn dart, and northern ops are way easier with the Beech.
The Tail feathers remove the requirement for YD, and increase the CG range, the others waddle in turbulence like me rolling down George st. after a stag.
For a replacement, I would like to see the CBA123 reborn with -67's slightly higher cruise with 3 across cabin. Though they would have to lose a ton(2000#) of weight, oh BTW they tried using a tpe331 derivative, it kept exploding.
Oh the 228 is unpressurized, and only goes about 200 ktas, more a B99 replacement
Wrong, we have done +10,000 hrs with composite on gravel and we replace at no higher at rate than you file 'em.fish4life wrote: Next COMPOSITE PROPS are awful for gravel, one rock ding and BAM $25 000 ish out the window you need metal props up north.
PS 1900D blade is under $1G.
PS Your Dash 8 has composite props.
it is a constant maintenance AC but if you get an experienced Engineer and one who can read a wiring dia and troubleshoot properly and not shotgun and stock a few parts it shouldnt be a problem.
they run them all over dark Africa so if thats possible then a decent operation in Canada should be able.
composite props are a bit of a pain but in general you can run them ok on unimproved strips, be sure to read the manual before you grease this prop, especially if youre used to 3 blade metal where you take out the rear fitting and pump away.
the enviro system is weak, if its hot where you operate expect headaches as it runs on the max and poops out at times.
landing gear solenoids fail, use the proper grease in the trim jacks, don't warp the windows with your exhaust,
1. most sops have you slow early, i have had fo's slow to 180 30 miles back because sops say to slow within 20 of the IAF
2. Metro's flap 1 is 215 if i remember
my record was 248 to 2.5 final atc slotted us between 2 jets and asked us to keep the speed up, btw standup in the sewer tube, or try to have a conversation
dash 8's are a couple feet from the gravel that's the differenceThe Hammer wrote:Wrong, we have done +10,000 hrs with composite on gravel and we replace at no higher at rate than you file 'em.fish4life wrote: Next COMPOSITE PROPS are awful for gravel, one rock ding and BAM $25 000 ish out the window you need metal props up north.
PS 1900D blade is under $1G.
PS Your Dash 8 has composite props.
The props are not an issue as it is all pavement, so the question is this a real concern or only with regard to gravel strips. I have seen pilots do terrible damage to props by really not know ing how to operate them so I am skeptical if only one poster has had this problem.
The numbers and fuel flows were what we had , which prompted my initial post regarding someone saying they were so bad.
As someone mentined the 228s are not pressurized so they are not being considered.
Thanks for the maintenance heads up. Our maintenence folks are top of the class and will get training on the acquisition, so once the learning curve settles down that should not be an issue
Everything I am getting points to this being a pretty good machine. Aquisitions costs are not really as important as operating costs to us.
The amount of power available to you in the event of a emergency is substantial, Max Continuous is 3750 ft/lbs of Torque aside. Emergency power is 5000 ft/lbs aside for 20 seconds. The best true airspeed that I've calculated was 289kts in cruise. Not shabby. Some people bash the tailets, stablons, and duel aft body strakes, but bare in mind that this is also on top of a Yaw Damp. Compared to similar aircraft in its class including we'll say the dash 8 and shorts 360 it is by far the most stable aircraft along the vertical axis. I have yet to see someone puke.
Metro= san antonio sewer pipe= lawn dart in reference to where it's made, what it looks like, single engine performance, small cramped noisy cabin, needs a good mech
disjointed, but you get the drift
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3588
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
- Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME
Like I said realistically (and hopefully!) the 1900 is going to be around for a while. While the gravel strips and short runways is an important question for the northern operators, what about a companies like CMA and Georgian that operate out of bigger centers and serve smaller markets. Places like CYWL, CYQZ, and CYDQ in CMA's case don't need 30+ seats most of the time. The 1900 seems like a perfect fit, good performance for the terrain (west), more of an Airline feel (pressurized, lavatory ect.). while this is a niche market... it still is a market and it seemed odd that the 1900 has it all to itself (almost).
PS I kinda like all the junk on the tail and the winglets, at first i hated them, but it's kinda grown on me, like a song you have to listen to 10 times before you like it .... Still dont like how the nose gear looks like its bolted as close to the front as possible
It is good to get some decent info.. You video reminded me of pilots who complain about prop strikes and then use reverse on every gravel strip landing.
The D will burn 1000 lbs/hr at altitudes below about 13,000 feet. Flight plan for 900lbs first hour, then 800 after that. I've seen burns as low as 7-750 at FL250 with a TAS of 280kts. It's by no means "slow". The Saab 340, Dash 8-100, J-31 etc are all much slower.co-joe wrote:My understanding of the main fuel consumption problem of the 1900 is the pressurisation won't let you go above 250. Totally ridiculous for engines that size to be stuck down low like that. What's it burn 1000 # per hour each in cruise? If it could climb to 350 then you'd have a real economical aircraft.
As someone previously mentioned, and a very good point, the D is overpowered yes. However, if there's a turboprop I'd ever want to be in if an engine failed, it's the 1900. It's stable, it's extremely agile and handles extremely well. It's a great machine with excellent gravel strip capabilities. Meeting climb gradients and performance requirements is generally not much of a challenge and we rarely have mechanical issues with our machines, thanks to excellent maintenance of course. I think that more or less applies to most aircraft. If well maintained, it's usually pretty reliable.
As for using reverse on gravel, I don't know of too many operators/pilots that do it. Especially in the 1900. Ground fine is more than sufficient for slowing down. I rarely use reverse to begin with, including pavement.