beech 400 A-XP

[lovis9]

Hi guys,

I am trying to find out the main differences btw the beech 400 A and beech 400 XP models, can you help me on that???

Any help will be well appreciated.

thanks a lot,
lovi.

[wondering]

On the outside, the 400A has one more cabin window. (The toilet window is missing on the XP) Max T/O weight for the straight 400A is 16100lbs and 16300 for the XP. If you have the T/O weight MOD on the 400A, the T/O weight will be 16300lbs as well.

Performance? No difference to speak off.

[bizantin]

The other difference is that they are both very dangerous!!!
Don't fly it or you will learn how scary flying can be.

[His dudeness]

"The other difference is that they are both very dangerous!!!
Don't fly it or you will learn how scary flying can be."

Would you please explain?

[wondering]

Dangerous??? *lol*

No ailerons just spoilers for roll controll. So what? I wonder why the USAF is using the Jayhawk (Beechjet) as training aircraft for its tanker and bomber crews. Because it is dangerous??? UGTBSM

Try to get a four tube version, 2 PFDs and 2 MFDs, NOT 2 PFDs + 1 MFD + 1 NavDisplay. The NavDisplay I saw some years ago is next to useless. But, 2 MFDs make flying a lot more enjoyable. Of course, the Proline4 avionics suite is somewhat dated. Wonder when they will change to Proline21. Even the new Citationjets have Proline21 :ugh:

The name change is basically just a marketing hype ;)

[bizantin]

extremely poor takeoff and landing performance (not even mentioning the wet data, catastrophic!)
unreliable and impossible to fix (no maintenance anywhere in europe)
no space for luggage
needs prist in the 7tanks and 3refuelling points whom the back requires a ladder and overall 45mn to fully refuel...
no APU
every passenger you put affects the range
and so on and so on...
It is dangerous and and a pain in the bu:mad:. To summarize a dangerous piece of sh:mad:.

[wondering]

Not sure to which other airplanes you are comparing the 400XP and what your operational requirements are. It certainly depends on many factors.

Anyhow, dont think T/O performance is THAT bad. I have seen it operate out of 4000' (and shorter) strips. Wet and contaminated T/O data is only advisory in nature; not FAA approved.

No airplane in that class has an APU.

Imho, the cabin offers the best passenger comfort in it´s class (They are paying for it, right). Let your customers sit in a Bravo, LR31A and BE400 and then ask them which cabin they like best.

Refuelling takes about 20-25min, which is still very long. How come someones neeeds 45min is beyond me. The requirement for Prist is a pain. No doubt. There is a STC for fuel heaters. That should get rid of Prist eventually. Think NJE is modifying all its aircraft.

Depending on the BOW of the plane two or three passengers can be taken on board with full fuel.

Baggage space? One obviously does not want to take large Samsonites on board. Cleverly used, the aft baggage compartment can hold quite a bit of lagguage. Imho, it´s better to have an outside baggage compartment. In that case, nobody is dragging luggage through the cabin and damaging the interior.

Maintenance time and space are an issue. There haven´t been that many Beechjets around in Europe until NJE ordered so many. Maintenance facilities just cant cope with so many new Beechjets entering Europe in such a short amount of time.

Flying qualities are very docile. Stalling and flying 5-10kts below Vref hold no nasty surpises. Fowler flaps extend to about 80% of the trailing edge which results in low Vref speeds for a swept wing aircraft. Unlike some other airplanes in that class, the Beechjet has swept wings. I reckon, jets should have swept wings, but that´s just me :p

Oh, I still have not figured out what is sooooo dangerous after more than just a few hours flying it. :confused:


@lovis9,

I see you are from Italy, why not ask some of the operators there. As I see it, the Beechjet is becoming rather popular in Italy.

[captain coldfront]

Bizantin,
You clearly do not know anything about that which you speak with such authority.

[733driver]

Why should the 400 be dangerous Bizantin?

I agree with the other posters further up. I have some time on the 400 and while it can be a bit of a pain in terms of refueling I found it a pleasent airplane to fly. Much nicer than the Citation Bravo for example. The prist mod is now available so that is no problem. Proline 21 should come next year I believe, as will new engines (PW530). That' what I was told by a Hawker Beechcraft person in the US a few month ago.That should also improve t/o performance which is not that bad anyway. In either case, the reqirement for a longer runway does not make an airplane dangerous if you observe its performance limitations.

So, NO it is NOT an dangerous airplane. It has a nicer cabin, a nicer cockpit (if older) and flies much faster and more jetlike then the citation Bravo which I did fly as well but found it to be a bit MickeyMouse (but versatile).

[lifesabeech]

Bizantine

Wondering why you have such a hate for the 400? Have you flown the aircraft or just heard stories from people who want to fly something bigger?
As for the dangerous comments, it is only dangerous if you don't know how to handle the different configuration same as any aircraft( i think thats one reason why you do a type rating for every different aircraft!!). I think we'd all be interested to hear a bit more explanation on your comments.

[Elias]

Not saying anything pro or against the 400, just some info shown in pprune regarding this:

"Safety Communiqué No. 272
August, 2006
TO: ALL OWNERS AND OPERATORS, CHIEF PILOTS, DIRECTORS OF
OPERATIONS, CHIEF INSPECTORS, DIRECTORS OF MAINTENANCE, ALL
RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT AUTHORIZED SERVICE CENTERS, AND
INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTORS AND DEALERS.
MODELS: ALL RAYTHEON MITSUBISHI MODEL MU-300; BEECHJET MODEL 400,
400A (INCLUDING HAWKER 400XP); MODEL 400T (T-1A AND TX) AIRCRAFT
SUBJECT: DUAL ENGINE POWER LOSS
In April 2006, Raytheon Aircraft Company (RAC) issued Safety Communiqué 269 to inform operators of
an incident in which a Model 400A experienced complete loss of power from both engines during descent.
The Safety Communiqué also reminded operators of FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)
procedures pertaining to operation in possible icing conditions, proper use of fuel system icing inhibitors,
and preflight inspections.
RAC is issuing this Safety Communiqué to provide updated information related to that event and other
occurrences of dual engine power loss. This Safety Communiqué also announces revisions to the various
model-specific AFMs. Due to design similarities, this information is applicable to all listed models.
From April, 2000 to June, 2006 RAC has received four reports of airplanes which experienced dual engine
power loss, including the incident referred to in Safety Communiqué 269. Following are brief summaries
of those reports (The referenced National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reports may be viewed on
the internet at
www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/query.asp): (http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/query.asp%29:)

No NTSB Report
- On April 23, 2000, a Model 400A, Serial Number RK-122, departed Curacao and was
two hours 15 minutes into flight in clear air at an altitude of 41,000 feet (FL410) when the crew noticed
complete loss of power from the right engine, followed by a complete loss of power from the left engine
two seconds later. The crew reported they had experienced some thunderstorm activity, but were above
the tops of the clouds at the time of the incident. The left engine was successfully restarted and the
airplane landed without further incident at Macapa, Amapa (Northern Brazil).

NTSB Report ENG04IA021
- On July 12, 2004, a Model 400A, Serial Number RK-365, departed Duncan,
OK and was en route to Fort Myers, FL. Approximately 100 miles west of Sarasota, FL while descending
from FL410 in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) the aircraft experienced a complete loss of
power from both engines. After several attempts, the right engine was restarted and the airplane landed
at Sarasota, FL without further incident.

NTSB Report DCA06IA007
- On November 28, 2005, a Model 400A, Serial Number RK-317, departed
Indianapolis, IN and was en route to Marco Island, FL. The flight cruised at FL350 for 45 minutes, then
requested an ascent to FL400 due to clouds. The flight was at FL400 for 30 minutes. The flight descended
to FL380 for five to 10 minutes and was in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) in and out of the tops
of clouds. Shortly after decreasing power and initiating a descent from FL380, the crew reported a complete loss of power from the right engine, followed by the left engine ten seconds later. The crew was
unsuccessful in their attempts to restart the engines and landed successfully without engine power at
Jacksonville, FL.

NTSB Report ENG06IA020
- On June 14, 2006, a Model 400A, Serial Number RK-8 departed Quonset
Point, RI and was en route to Charleston, SC. The flight crew reported being about 70 miles south of
Norfolk, VA in VMC at FL380 with a solid cloud deck at FL350. The clouds were known to be the remnants
of tropical storm Alberto. After being directed to make a turn by ATC, the flight crew activated the engine
igniters and reduced engine power in preparation for activating engine anti-ice. After reducing engine
power but before activating engine anti-ice, the crew reported simultaneous and complete loss of engine
power. The crew was successful in restarting both engines and landed without further incident at Norfolk,
VA.

The last three incidents are still under investigation by the NTSB and no probable cause has been
determined at this time. However, it has been noted that certain circumstances are common to all of the
events:

•
The airplane was being operated near visible moisture and/or near convective activity.

•
The airplane was being operated at or above FL380.

•
Engine anti-ice was not in use at the time of power loss.

•
Except for the right engine from RK-317, which was removed as part of the investigation, all of the
involved engines remained in situ on the airplane and were returned to service. Subsequently,
there has been no reported loss of power associated with any of those engines.
FAA, RAC, and Pratt & Whitney Canada (P&WC) are cooperatively assisting the NTSB in its investigation
of these incidents. As a result of this information sharing, RAC has elected to revise the respective AFM
procedures in order to clarify them and to incorporate industry practice with regard to operation in or near
icing conditions.
With reference to the current Model 400A AFM, there are two CAUTION statements in Section 4,

NORMAL PROCEDURES.
The first CAUTION located under ANTI/DEICE SYSTEMS (IN FLIGHT
OPERATIONS) reads as follows:

CAUTION
Do not operate anti/deice systems at Ram Air Temperatures greater than 10°C unless in actual
icing conditions, as indicated by illumination of the ICING annunciator (If installed) or airframe ice
accumulation. Ice protection systems should be on prior to encountering actual icing. Turn
systems off when clear of icing conditions.
The second
CAUTION, located under DESCENT, states the following:

CAUTION
If icing conditions are anticipated during descent and approach, turn ice protection systems ON as
early as possible prior to penetrating clouds. Maintain wing/deice operation light ON
(approximately 70% N
2) during descent to assure proper wing anti-ice operation.

Safety Communiqué No. 272 3 of 3
The export of these commodities, technology or software are subject to the US Export Administration Regulations. Diversion contrary to U.S. law is prohibited. For guidance on
export control requirements, contact the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Export Administration at 202-482-4811 or at
www.bxa.doc.gov (http://www.bxa.doc.gov/).

While observance of these
CAUTIONS remains paramount, RAC intends to expand the definition of

engine icing conditions
to include:

•
Illumination of the icing annunciator (If installed)

•
Airframe ice accumulation.

•
At all altitudes and Ram Air Temperatures (RAT) of 10°C or less in visible moisture (Any
obstruction to visibility should be considered visible moisture unless it can be determined to be
smoke, dust or ash).

•
Above 20,000 feet MSL, and RAT of 10°C or less and any of the following conditions:

o
Within approximately 5,000 feet above visible moisture associated with convective
activity

o
Within approximately 10 nm horizontally of visible moisture associated with convective
activity

o
In visible moisture

o
At any time that the conditions listed above cannot be verified
As was noted in Safety Communiqué No. 269, no lower temperature limit exists for the operation of antiice
systems. Operators should be aware that air moving through the engine experiences a significant
temperature increase as it passes through the compressor section. This increase could bring the air
temperature to a range where internal engine ice formation might occur if Engine Anti-Ice were not
operating. Operators should not assume ice formation to be impossible at very low ambient temperatures
(i.e., -30 degrees C or colder).
In addition, Safety Communiqué No. 269 states that activation of engine anti-ice is not recommended
above 90% N1 to prevent transient exceedance of engine ITT limits. This procedure has been reviewed by
RAC and P&WC and it has been determined that reduction of power below 90% N1 is not required. .Engine
gauges should be monitored and thrust levers adjusted (if required) to maintain engine ITT limits following
activation of engine anti-ice.
RAC will be releasing a Temporary Change (TC) to all applicable Model AFMs, with subsequent AFM
revision, to incorporate this information. Additionally, RAC intends to request an Airworthiness Directive
from the FAA to introduce and distribute this change both domestically and internationally.
As noted previously, the NTSB is still investigating these incidents. RAC continues to assist the NTSB in
this investigation and will provide additional information as required.
For additional information on operating in or near icing conditions, refer to the applicable Pilot’s Operating
Manual (POM), Section V, General Information on Specific Topics, Flight Operations, Flight in Icing
Conditions"


Cheers.

[bizantin]

I have a couple hundreds of hours as PIC on it. I know exactly what I am talking about. This aircraft had a few double flame out in the past. I do not count the runway overrun due to brake failure and so on...
This is originally a mitsubishi who decided to stop making airplane when they realized how bad they were at making airplane!
This airplane is a pain to operate Jar ops1 because of its poor perf but if you operate it private you might not feel it.

Enjoy guys.

No hard feeling I hope

[733driver]

Those NTSB reports are old news. Since then th AFM has been changed and the Prist mod is available. I seem to remember that most of these incidents were related to imroper use of the engine antii ice systems and fuel additive.

Again, stick to the AFM and it is not a dangerous airplane. I have more than a couple of hundreds hours on type and it never scared me.

[captain coldfront]

Likewise, I too have a good deal more than a couple of hundred hours on the 400, operating under JAR OPs 1 and it never scared me either. I suggest Bizantin, you look closely at what you do with aeroplanes if this one scares you.

[bizantin]

You are right. I am going to reconsider everything. Thank you for your advice, it enlightened me.
Fly safe.

Biz


ps: can you land in Cannes with only 1 passenger in Jar Ops1?

[captain coldfront]

Surely if the book says you can't then don't, go to Nice. Perfectly safe and not a bit scarey.

[bizantin]

If the book says...I see why you don't have that many problems operating it, I see...

[gigi116]

I flew MU300, BE400 and BE400A for about 3.000 hours. It is a good airplane. As each airplane has it's own procedures and techniques that must be strictly followed.
I landed with 35 kts crosswind without problems, just question of proper technique. I flew 1.300 NM and landed with 1200 Lbs. reserve in 3hrs 40' no wind. Few airplanes of its class do it !
Regarding engine antice is again question of follow good procedures.
Common problems with : windshield delamination, yaw damper and Air Cycle Machine.
To be operated under JAR OPS1 it need at least 5.000 in the most favourable conditions. It means no landing allowed in Cannes or Florence, this is a BIG problem for operator. Cabin is the best in its class !

[captain coldfront]

Precisely Bizantin, if the book says. Of course if you choose to operate outside the makers recommendations then I agree, it may well be scary. Personally I would rather stick to rules and enjoy a long career.

[Togue]

bizantin,


It is not ok to bite the hand that feeds you.