PDA

View Full Version : Beech 1900


STANDTO
18th May 2004, 17:33
Waht would happen if you took the wing winglets, and the droopy down tail winglets off a Beech 1900.

does this a/c lack inherent lateral stability?

747FOCAL
18th May 2004, 19:26
you would go slower, use more gas and have less rudder authority. :) :)

STANDTO
19th May 2004, 17:04
Simple as that, eh!

I wonder, did they design it like that, or did they have to stick the extra bits on when they found out it used a lot of gas and had unacceptablt low rudder authority:D

john_tullamarine
20th May 2004, 05:37
.. even without any substantiating data .. I think it a fair position to suggest that the 1900 is a good study example of flight test fixes ...

Empty Cruise
20th May 2004, 09:09
And - of course - the Vmca would increase somewhat. The "droopy down"-thingies are actually called taillets by Beechcraft, the horizontal thingies on the fuselage called stabilons.

J_T sums it up nicely :p Marketing came up with a great lay-out (D-model, that is :} ) , and when aerodynamics dept. came back looking somewhat cross, the marketing guys said "OK - OK - now I see - you want it to fly, then?" That's what I call giving aeroplane design a twist :O

Brgds,
Empty.

STANDTO
20th May 2004, 18:13
What was the cause of that bad crash in the states? Did anyone ever find out?

swh
20th May 2004, 21:03
The only thing that really would change is that the CG range would go down from 40% MAC to 4% MAC making the aircraft almost impossible to use.

EnglishmaninNY
20th May 2004, 21:37
Standto

What was the cause of that bad crash in the states? Did anyone ever find out

I believe it was a combination of two factors. Firstly, there was a mechanical issue with the trim components being incorrectly installed or adjusted, and secondly I believe the aircraft was loaded incorrectly, moving the center of gravity aft. Unfortunately, I beleive that the pilot's efforts at bringing the nose back down during the initial climb out where unsuccessful :sad: .

Regards

EinNY

Maverick343
21st May 2004, 01:47
Yes that is correct. There was an in-depth article in NTSB reporter about it. The elevator controls were rigged incorrectly after a D6 maintance check resulting in a restricted movement. That and the CG was aft of acceptable limits. The pilots had computed the balance correctly but the FAA's average weight was and is considered to be off. It is too bad as the aircraft pitched up 54 degrees after t/o and the pilots were full forward on the controls with no effect. Must have been a scary situation. The NTSB mainly blamed the Air Midwest maintance program.

Elliot Moose
21st May 2004, 19:13
Ahhh yes those "thingies" that hang off the back end of the stinking Beeches! 747focal has it about right there. It would fly, but nobody would certify it--actually nobody should have certified it anyways in my opinion. I vented my spleen on that one a couple of years ago, and I think I have it figured out how to post a link to it if you're interested in my delusional diatribe....:}

www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53028

STANDTO
21st May 2004, 19:43
Interesting stuff. I am always a little bit careful as to what I get into, and a certain netherlands based outfit is flying them in and out of Fraggle International. Fortunately I haven't wanted/needed to go anywhere they fly to yet, and the have an ATR 42 on their main route.

Moose - that makes frightening reading!

I was in a Dash 8 the other day. That was a pleasant experience. However, I was B*llocked for getting up out of my seat before the seatbelt light went off. I'm not a maverick, just was miles away. We were stationary, and wind down had started. Now, if it is all going wrong, I don't want to be strapped in, I want to be out (especially seeing as I was in row 11!) Why, when you are on the stand, do you need to be strapped in?

There will be a sensible answer, won't there:uhoh:

Elliot Moose
22nd May 2004, 03:37
Hey, now don't get me wrong. There's nothing WRONG with the 1900 per se--it's just that the guys that signed off the design should be removed from their profession for sheer laziness in design and complete lack of esthetic sense. Their overall result works for what it was designed for, and is generally a safe aircraft in the hands of a competent crew. In principle it could have been a great machine, with clean lines, speed, a stand-up cabin, able to work comfortably in all sorts of environments and incredibly easy to fly and maintain. What was produced was a fast aircraft that is still a heck of a lot better than its competition, which is of cours the San Antonio sewer pipe, the Texas lawn dart, the screaming weenie, the death tube.......:yuk:

Ignition Override
25th May 2004, 04:34
Maverick343: Just out of curiosity, are the Air Midwest B-1900 (etc) major maintenance checks done by mechanics (engineers) who have work for Air Midwest?

Or are the major inspections etc done by "outsourced" maintenance?

wrenchbender
26th May 2004, 03:59
The maintenance was "outsourced". I don't have a link, but I've read the NTSB report. Scary stuff.