10 years of Impulse 1900D service
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 years of Impulse 1900D service
This year marks the 10th year (and it looks like the last) of the 1900D service with Impulse.
Their first 1900D N136MA (UE-7) arrived in Sydney on the 28th of May 1992. This aircraft became VH-SMH on the 3rd June 1992.
The 1900D is the 'King' of the 19 seat aircraft.
It has great performance and you never had to leave bags behind when carrying 19 pax and wx holding. It has loads more passenger appeal than a Metro and for the pilots it is easy to fly.
QF really don't care about the small regional centres, if they did they wouldn't be selling the 1900D's and replacing them with Metro and PA31 services. Even the Kiwi's realise the 1900D is better than the Metro.
So ends another chapter in Australia's regional airline industry.
Their first 1900D N136MA (UE-7) arrived in Sydney on the 28th of May 1992. This aircraft became VH-SMH on the 3rd June 1992.
The 1900D is the 'King' of the 19 seat aircraft.
It has great performance and you never had to leave bags behind when carrying 19 pax and wx holding. It has loads more passenger appeal than a Metro and for the pilots it is easy to fly.
QF really don't care about the small regional centres, if they did they wouldn't be selling the 1900D's and replacing them with Metro and PA31 services. Even the Kiwi's realise the 1900D is better than the Metro.
So ends another chapter in Australia's regional airline industry.
Last edited by F111; 9th Jun 2002 at 00:52.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aust
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the King of the 19 seaters it is worth noting that you need a King's ransom to operate them. The operating (and ownership) costs of the 1900 do not stack up to the Metro which is why the Metro will continue to operate at the thin regional end in Oz.
The Metro is the best chance the smaller regional centres have of getting a viable, sustainable turbine RPT service.
The Metro is the best chance the smaller regional centres have of getting a viable, sustainable turbine RPT service.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: WA
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree F111 , plenty a balls..........
Nuttin like a PT 6 dash 67 at power ..........
Didn't know that they were so much to operate?
They look fantastic on a rear 3 quarter angle in the climb clean.
Shame they are on the way out.
Apparently some are the highest Houred 1900's worldwide is that right?
Nuttin like a PT 6 dash 67 at power ..........
Didn't know that they were so much to operate?
They look fantastic on a rear 3 quarter angle in the climb clean.
Shame they are on the way out.
Apparently some are the highest Houred 1900's worldwide is that right?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't need a kings ransom to operate, if you did ANZ would have purchased the J32, which is half the cost of the 1900D.
The 1900C/D has been far more of a sales success than the Metro II, III and the 23. Here are the sales figures up to Mid 2000.
The 1900 first flew in Sep 1982 and was replaced by the 1900D in 1991. For the 18 years (82-00) 683 aircraft were sold. That's 37.9 aircraft per year.
The metro first flew in Aug 1969, it was replaced by the II in 1975, the III in 1981 and finally the 23 in 1994. For the 31 years (69-00) 607 aircraft were sold. That's 19.58 aircraft per year.
The Metro II and III were the aircraft to have in the late 70's and the 80's and hence sold well. But in the 90's the passenger and airlines wanted more. The 1900D gave the passenger more comfort and gave the airlines more reliability.
The 1900D has far less sytems then the Metro, it doesn't need a SAS, or an engine computer. Those fail and can you leave you stranded. Plus it doesn't require CAWI!
If the Metro III and 23 are so cheap to operate, will the airfares on the routes where the Metro replaces the 1900D drop?
MS,
On one engine they fly at the same speed as a Bandit on two.
It was always fun departing Kempsey on the ferry flights back to Sydney, no seats, no pax. just the 2 crew.
The 1900C/D has been far more of a sales success than the Metro II, III and the 23. Here are the sales figures up to Mid 2000.
The 1900 first flew in Sep 1982 and was replaced by the 1900D in 1991. For the 18 years (82-00) 683 aircraft were sold. That's 37.9 aircraft per year.
The metro first flew in Aug 1969, it was replaced by the II in 1975, the III in 1981 and finally the 23 in 1994. For the 31 years (69-00) 607 aircraft were sold. That's 19.58 aircraft per year.
The Metro II and III were the aircraft to have in the late 70's and the 80's and hence sold well. But in the 90's the passenger and airlines wanted more. The 1900D gave the passenger more comfort and gave the airlines more reliability.
The 1900D has far less sytems then the Metro, it doesn't need a SAS, or an engine computer. Those fail and can you leave you stranded. Plus it doesn't require CAWI!
If the Metro III and 23 are so cheap to operate, will the airfares on the routes where the Metro replaces the 1900D drop?
MS,
On one engine they fly at the same speed as a Bandit on two.
It was always fun departing Kempsey on the ferry flights back to Sydney, no seats, no pax. just the 2 crew.
Last edited by F111; 9th Jun 2002 at 11:11.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aust
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F111, I don't know why AirNZ chose the 1900D over other types. I am not familiar with NZ ops. Perhaps field performance or the J32s reliability problems? I believe the 1900D is the only 19 seater (of those mentioned anyway) still in production. Maybe this was a consideration?
There is a significant difference in operating costs between the 1900 and Metro. Also in TPE331 vs PT-6 overhaul costs. (I'n not opening the 'which is the better engine' can of worms!). Significantly the cost differential is in US$. The 1900D is a generation ahead of the Metro in all the areas you mentioned. It doesn't however stack up in the $ stakes.
The list I've got shows 904 Metros produced. Did you mean just Metro 3/23?
I think you know the answer to your last question
There is a significant difference in operating costs between the 1900 and Metro. Also in TPE331 vs PT-6 overhaul costs. (I'n not opening the 'which is the better engine' can of worms!). Significantly the cost differential is in US$. The 1900D is a generation ahead of the Metro in all the areas you mentioned. It doesn't however stack up in the $ stakes.
The list I've got shows 904 Metros produced. Did you mean just Metro 3/23?
I think you know the answer to your last question
Last edited by bitter balance; 9th Jun 2002 at 16:07.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Way North
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C99 is I belive the next progersion after the Qeenair
With PT6-37 I think engines . Unpressuried and seating 14
It has a rear air stair as in the King Air/Queen Air
A forward nose locker and some models fitted with under
fueslarge baggage pod.
The Beech 1900c followed by the 1900D
Are a 19 Seat presurised model variant of the kingair
with a forward airstair . Certified up to 25000feet.
The 1900D has a streached cabin height of about 5ft 10 or so
at 6ft1 I can almost stand. It also has winglets and vertilons and
winglets on the horizontal stablizer (Which is a Kingair 350 Tail)
On the flight deck dual collins efis both sides with collins flight director
Tas of a new model 1900 used to be 267kts with older models
slightly slower some later models fitted with King GPS
which could be coupled to the autopilot via the Flight director.
For its time I think the 1900D was up to speed in equipment with
300-500 737,s and ahead of the saab340 other then seating
capacity and FMS
Hope this helps and let me know if I can help anymore.
With PT6-37 I think engines . Unpressuried and seating 14
It has a rear air stair as in the King Air/Queen Air
A forward nose locker and some models fitted with under
fueslarge baggage pod.
The Beech 1900c followed by the 1900D
Are a 19 Seat presurised model variant of the kingair
with a forward airstair . Certified up to 25000feet.
The 1900D has a streached cabin height of about 5ft 10 or so
at 6ft1 I can almost stand. It also has winglets and vertilons and
winglets on the horizontal stablizer (Which is a Kingair 350 Tail)
On the flight deck dual collins efis both sides with collins flight director
Tas of a new model 1900 used to be 267kts with older models
slightly slower some later models fitted with King GPS
which could be coupled to the autopilot via the Flight director.
For its time I think the 1900D was up to speed in equipment with
300-500 737,s and ahead of the saab340 other then seating
capacity and FMS
Hope this helps and let me know if I can help anymore.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: solaris
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi F111. Good to hear of back home. I used to fly fortnightly into kempsey as SLF earning the bread. Couldn't agree more about the 1900 as a pax: goes like stink, nice and unstable, pilots would appear to enjoy it and perhaps throw it around a bit more, tight circuits and all. One stall warning on a particularly tight base turn into Taree (post QF buyout but still on the 1900) brought a smile (yes I know the difference between the various alerts).
Particularly liked the hop taken once from PtM to kempsey through the valley line at about 1500' agl. Superb in something quick like that close in, rather than in a C150.
Shame things move on. Dash 8 to portMq is like catching the bus.
Particularly liked the hop taken once from PtM to kempsey through the valley line at about 1500' agl. Superb in something quick like that close in, rather than in a C150.
Shame things move on. Dash 8 to portMq is like catching the bus.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB,
There were 1053 Merlin/Metro aircraft built in total. The includes all versions of the Merlin(I, 11, III and IV) and all versions of the Metro (I, II, III and 23). The last aircraft was rolled out on the 23rd of March 2001.
The Merlin is not a commuter aircraft, but a business aircraft along the same lines as the King Air. So if we included the total number of King Air's with the number of 1900C/D it would blow the Merlin/Metro away.
One final thing, in 2001 there were only 22 Metros operating with regional airlines in the US. One good thing, there are still over 800 Merlins/Metros still flying world wide, which is pretty good, since the first Merlin flew in 1965.
There were 1053 Merlin/Metro aircraft built in total. The includes all versions of the Merlin(I, 11, III and IV) and all versions of the Metro (I, II, III and 23). The last aircraft was rolled out on the 23rd of March 2001.
The Merlin is not a commuter aircraft, but a business aircraft along the same lines as the King Air. So if we included the total number of King Air's with the number of 1900C/D it would blow the Merlin/Metro away.
One final thing, in 2001 there were only 22 Metros operating with regional airlines in the US. One good thing, there are still over 800 Merlins/Metros still flying world wide, which is pretty good, since the first Merlin flew in 1965.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aust
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F111, I think you have to include the Merlin IVa and IVc series which are long body aircraft offered in 12 seat executive or 19 seat commuter configs. You're quite right to take the short body Merlin series out. This brings the number of Metros and Merlin IVs to more like 730 on my figures.
Regardless though, comparisons of the relevant merits of the aircraft (and sales) is not the point of my argument. As I stated, the B1900D is ahead of the Metro in most areas. My point is that commercially, on the proposed route structure, the Metro is the better a/c.
Regardless though, comparisons of the relevant merits of the aircraft (and sales) is not the point of my argument. As I stated, the B1900D is ahead of the Metro in most areas. My point is that commercially, on the proposed route structure, the Metro is the better a/c.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm quite suprised that Raytheon haven't approached any of the operators out here, like Skippers, Horizon, Mac-air/Jet-craft, Pel-Air, with a juicy carrot of a deal to replace their aging flogged to death Metroliners, at an unbelieveable price. A lot of the U.S. regionals have traded in their 1900's for other equipment, which has led to heaps of them being parked. I understand that, the operating costs might be a fraction higher, but as F111 mentioned, the reduced costs in the hangar would be sizeable also.
I spoke with a LAME'y friend of mine who works on both types, and they said, from an engineering perspective, the 1900 wins hands down. Very user friendly machine, thus reducing time in the shop.
I think as a freighter also, they might be able to uplift more than a Metro too, but i'm not sure on that though.
I spoke with a LAME'y friend of mine who works on both types, and they said, from an engineering perspective, the 1900 wins hands down. Very user friendly machine, thus reducing time in the shop.
I think as a freighter also, they might be able to uplift more than a Metro too, but i'm not sure on that though.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raytheon = $$$
No personal experiance on 1900D's but after having operated other Beech/Raytheon types - the parts are VERY expensive.
Friends in the USA have previously told me;
Pilots luv 'em, Engineers luv 'em & S.L.C. luv 'em but Accountants hate 'em.
Friends in the USA have previously told me;
Pilots luv 'em, Engineers luv 'em & S.L.C. luv 'em but Accountants hate 'em.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aust
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T53C, I'm pretty sure Raytheon has been flogging 1900s around. 1900D lease price is still higher than M23 and at least twice M3. As F111 pointed out, there are a few Metros in the market as well (being retired from US pax ops). The diff in DOCs is more than fractional.
Last edited by bitter balance; 11th Jun 2002 at 10:30.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Established.
Age: 53
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F111,
Your opinions tend to be along the lines of, every a/c you have flown is great and everything you haven't is crap.
As you have never been the person signing the cheques to operate any of these types, your opinion is similar to the old a$$hole story.....everybodys got one.
Your opinions tend to be along the lines of, every a/c you have flown is great and everything you haven't is crap.
As you have never been the person signing the cheques to operate any of these types, your opinion is similar to the old a$$hole story.....everybodys got one.