View Full Version : Beechcraft 1900D Fuel consumption

1st Nov 2007, 05:24
I have read that the 1900D has a fuel consumption of 110 GPH, but other indications I have read challenge this. Please could anybody give me some idea about the 1900D fuel consumption for climb and cruise in Litres ?

1st Nov 2007, 05:46
Kiwiguy, you going to operate some???????

let me know :ok::ok::ok: I'll pull out all me old manuals etc

1st Nov 2007, 06:35
Fuel burn as per the operating document. (approx. 400 - 500 litres per hour depending on application and segments)

1st Nov 2007, 18:50
My experience was about 800 lbs/hr total in cruise, between FL200 and 250.
Plan 1200 lbs/hr for climb, and 500 lbs/hr during descent. The book advertises 285 kts TAS, which is possible but at a rather expensive 16,000 feet. In the low twenties 275 TAS is a very realistic figure.

1st Nov 2007, 22:21
Thanks Cardinal,

Since posting I have read that fuel flow ranges from 560lb/hr to nearly 900lb at 280 knots.

Just a subjective question. Is the Beechcraft what you would term a fuel miser or is she a bit thirsty ?

1st Nov 2007, 22:44
I guess I should qualify my reply in that that was real world values, and setting "company" power, not book settings. We climbed at Max Continuous Torque, and once limited by temperature climbed at ITT 760C, cruise between 730-760C. Descent was on the barber pole. There were no complaints regarding engine life from our mx department nor our engine vendor.

Miserly? That's probably generous. There are airplanes that will burn less fuel. The Emb-120, for example, carries 11 more people on only 20% more fuel burn, most of which was in the climb. At FL280 you could bring the fuel flow down to match the Beech, 800lbs/hr, and be 20kts TAS faster with more than half again as many people. Some of the difference is the engine, the PT6 is only a two spool engine, so all 1275 SHP have to be extracted from the one power turbine stage, that just requires alot of gas flow. The PW118 on the E120 is a three spool design, with two power turbine stages, delivering better specific fuel consumption, but at the cost of considerable weight and complexity.

I believe the Metro family also burns less fuel to haul 19 people around, but in considerably less comfort. Also the 1900C burns a little less, not hauling around the added headroom of the D model. The 1900D is in a sweet spot, providing very respectable speed, enough raw power to climb out of the weather, hauls anything you can close the doors on, is maintainable with a screwdriver and a hammer, and offers pax comfort unparralleled among the competition.

For the contrasting viewpoint, I offer you this PPRuNe gem that I saved. Unfotunately I don't know who to credit for this magnificent treatise, whoever you are please step forward.

It is just a big king air. Sorry for the useless advice but it's true. The results of the bigifying are:
1) lousy pressurization control due to only using two BE-20 outflow valves to handle about 5 times the volume of air
2)not enough pressurization due to chopping the top and putting on flat sides. Flat sides don't pressurize well (like building a square balloon) so you only get 4.5lbs max dif. Therefore altitude limited by cabin and you fly around all the time with the cabin at 10000'. It's like flying a BE-99 for a living and you have to plan descents around the pressurization if you're high.
3)EFIS---not. What good is EFIS if all you use it for is displaying conventional instruments? Since it is a big king air, the system is an afterthought, so you have to flick all the normal switches plus a whole bunch more to turn on the TV's and fire up the standby instruments. Oh and by the way they are all over the place since the king air cockpit only had so much space to start with.
4)Plastic props--they work okay as long as they are rigged right and don't do dirt strips (like I did). Misrigged they have been known to feather (happened to a friend just after liftoff) and that is a really wild ride!
5)king air landing gear only bigger--and just as stiff. As well there is a little thing that makes the props go to a finer pitch when you get weight on wheels. So even if you get one on smoothly, the braking action of the props will put the other two on with a big clunk.
6)steering--the old king air stuff wouldn't work on such a big unit (although they did try a form on the early models). So they just added power steering--as an afterthought. Yup, more switches. They conveniently located one right on the power levers, but that is just an ON (not off-thats way across the cockpit) switch. To switch from taxi mode (less sensitive) to park mode (causes whiplash if a new person is driving) you have to dig down on the centre pedestal to the third switch over in a line of four amongst about a thousand others. This changeover usually happens when you are really busy and trying to avoid hitting people and other planes. Suggest the PNF find that one for the first while.
7)Flaps--why change a good thing right? They just put slightly modded king air flaps on because hey, they worked okay on everything since the model 18, right? The result: get ready for approach speeds the same as small jets, even though you only weigh 17000lbs and have props.
8)Tailfeathers--why change a good thing right? Says the redesigner: " Ooops the plane is too big--needs more tail, more rudder, more stabilizer. Oh well lets just start hanging stuff on back there until she flies. Strakes, no bigger, no biggest strakes ever seen get added. Tail-lets and stabilons (don't quote me on the names here) and then oops half of it should get deicing boots. There now it flies right, except oops there isn't enough trim. So, lets add about two inches to the TRIM TABS ONLY so we don't have to mess with anything else. Well no they look like they came off a dash-8, but they work. "
9)Pax door. Well take a king air door and make it BIG. I hope your GF works out because that gas strut is only there for one reason--to scare the cr@p out of pilots when the bolt lets go.
10)Cargo door. Possibly the only truly new equipment on the machine. Since they never thought of that one before, it is a first attempt design. They cut a giant gaping hole in the fuselage, and then hinged it at the top (there were tailplane thingies everywhere else). They then took a gas strut from the tailgate of somebody's Dodge Caravan and charged it enough to hold the door up--at least until it clears KICT. To get it down, they use a hunk of cable with a parking brake handle at the end. Pilatus of course blew about $20 and added a .5lb motor to close a similar door on the PC12, and gas struts on both doors that were up to the job--but what do those Swiss know about building things?
11)Cockpit design. Take a C-90 (which is a pressurized BE-18) add a couple of inches of panel and about five switches for every mod that has been made to the thing since 1935 since nothing is truly new, and you're there. At least the seats got an upgrade.
Speed wise it is great--typical American design--MORE POWER is all you need to make a crappy machine great. She has the stuff to fly at FL310 easily (umm did I say that?) and smoothly, but you aren't supposed to go there........

2nd Nov 2007, 00:42
I always used a 'gross-error check' of 1000 lbs per hour, this would give you a block fuel pretty close to the flight plan fuel (inclusive of reserves). Cruise speed 275 Kts on most segments.


3rd Nov 2007, 19:42
Hi people!
I actually fly the B190 C that I think its very similar that D, and the Fuel Flow per engine is 350-375 Lbs per hour in cruise at FL 180-250 with a torque 3200-3400 and a 750 of ITT.The Speed is more and less of 270knots of TAS, the GS would depend of the outside wind.

5th Nov 2007, 03:21
The “C” model was the first Beech 1900 out and was an exceptional airframe the range in on par with those sewer pipes Metro 23’s but providing more headroom and baggage space. The 1900D are the exceptional model, stand up cabin, heaps of baggage space and a lower fuel consumption than the 1900C.

Kiwi guy I have pulled out those manuals if you wish’?

5th Nov 2007, 06:34
I,m sorry SkyStar320 but the first model of Beech 1900 was the "B" model.

5th Nov 2007, 06:39
Err thanks Skystar but I was just gonna say thanks to SpootNik for that handy rule of thumb to cover everything.

Only one thing Skystar320. I'm just a PPL guy so please indulge me... Assume a descent from 20,000ft to a regional airport without much traffic, how far out would you start descent and how long to climb to 20,000ft ?

I really enjoyed the earlier post about all the new points on a B1900D.
Having had the hassle of connecting power to Metros and Saabs the ramp crowd really appreciate one thing about the B1900Ds not mentioned here.
They sneak in and out of gates like phantoms. If you didn't need to unload the bags you'd hardly notice they were there... ha ha

Oh I just noticed someone ask if I would operate some. Yeah I was thinking that way for a regional development tourism project. Just nutting out a business plan. Oh shoot i scrolled back. That was you asking Skystar. Thanks mate.

There's one or two spots in NZ that have some folding stuff and want a better operation. The B1900D can be leased around $35k per month plus an hourly.

5th Nov 2007, 06:57
Its actually was a C model but operated under the UB MSN then UC

5th Nov 2007, 06:59
Spot on with those figures there AUD$35k roughly plus hourly reserves,

Though if your looking for 19 seaters, other two aircraft spring to mind

BAe 32EP AUD$20k monthly lease fee
Metro 23 AUD$27,500 monthly fee

plus = $85for engine/airframe reserves and AUD$5 for propellers

Hope it helps,

5th Nov 2007, 09:00
Metro kind of explains itself as passenger appeal is an issue. Especially on routes up to 2 hours and I have my reasons for not choosing the Jetstream. I've been crunching numbers assuming 62% patronage and the margin seems quite healthy for the B1900D.

Any thoughts on climb to altitude times and descent from 20,000ft ?

I flew in one as a pax a few weeks ago and the climb can't have been more than 15 mins.

Ngati Koata appear to be flying their Jetstreams out of WLG now.

The larger J.41s are headed for Angola, but I hear they have issues with prop lives being unsupported by manufacturers.

7th Nov 2007, 00:14
The larger J.41s are headed for Angola, but I hear they have issues with prop lives being unsupported by manufacturers

Depends, BAe systems still look after them and CFM do a great job maintaining them :ok::ok:

You can lease a J41 for US$30k a mth and pick up a couple around the 1.7 - 2.1mill mark.

I presume that your are talking about the ex Origion Pacific Bae 41 that have been sitting there for a while.....

Nortstar actually owns them but its proving to be a bit difficult as they cant seem to move any of the BAe 41 jetstreams they have.

Kiwiguy, drop me a PM with your email address as I have requested the 1900 series manual again from Raytheon after misplacing mine.....


7th Nov 2007, 00:49
I sent you a PM Skystar320. Those Jetstreams were very fast in operation with Origin Pacific, but had an awful clatter on the ramp.

Yes ... sorry I forget this is an international forum. I was referring to the former Origin J-41s which seem to have disappeared from the ramp at WLG just last night.

The lady behind the Maori owned (Ngati Koata) J-32 start up tells me that the J-41s were bound for Angola.

7th Nov 2007, 00:52
They Shouldn't have moved, they havnt got a C of A and they need lots of work on them to even get them airworthy!..... They were there last week!

Someone said that is looks like there is a chunk taken out of the Props on one..

Are you sure?

7th Nov 2007, 02:21
Assuming a reasonable weight, climb to FL200, about 15 minutes and 40 miles, Descent from the same would be about 12 minutes and 65 miles.