More Eagle Interviews
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Probably faster than a 146
.....just kidding
Last time I was on a 1900 it wasnt gassing the flight deck crew though!
And finally...come on MOR..you know the Q400 is the dogs Bollo$ks!!!!!..(waiting for you witty repost!)
H
.....just kiddingLast time I was on a 1900 it wasnt gassing the flight deck crew though!
And finally...come on MOR..you know the Q400 is the dogs Bollo$ks!!!!!..(waiting for you witty repost!)
H
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: South of zero
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
I personally dont have performance charts either but i got some off the net which are as close as possible
With the following conditions
Anti-ice on
Max ITT of 720 (interesting figure coz flight manual says 760 so it could be a little under powered)
7765kg initail climb weight
ISA day 15 deg at sea level using 2 deg per 1000ft = -35deg at FL250
SL- FL250
Time: 21mins
Distance: 51nm
climb burn: 290lbs not including taxi or start fuel
This is only a rough guide, maybe another beech driver has the charts we use and can give exact figures
splat
I personally dont have performance charts either but i got some off the net which are as close as possible
With the following conditions
Anti-ice on
Max ITT of 720 (interesting figure coz flight manual says 760 so it could be a little under powered)
7765kg initail climb weight
ISA day 15 deg at sea level using 2 deg per 1000ft = -35deg at FL250
SL- FL250
Time: 21mins
Distance: 51nm
climb burn: 290lbs not including taxi or start fuel
This is only a rough guide, maybe another beech driver has the charts we use and can give exact figures
splat
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here are some figures for the B1900D from section IV (Flight Planning Data).
Climb to FL240 (ISA temp -33)
Time: 15 mins
Dist: 42 nm
Fuel: 255 Ibs (not including taxi or start fuel)
Prop RPM: 1550
ITT: 720
Climb Speed:160 (SL to 10000') 150 (10000' to 15000') 140 (15000' to 20000') 130 (20000' to 25000')
HSC Cruise at FL240 ISA
TAS: 275 Kts
Fuel Flow: 774 Ibs/hr
Prop: 1550 RPM
And some figures from the J32 Crew Manual
Climb to FL240 (ISA)
Time: 26.1 mins
Dist: 82.7 nm
Fuel: 146 kg (321 Ibs)
97% RPM
TQE: 96.1% at start, 52.9% at F240
Flows Postion 5
HSC Cruise at FL240 ISA
TAS: 243
Fuel Flow: 258 kg(568 Ibs)/hr
97% RPM
So based on these Flight Manual figures the B1900D wins hands down. It is common knowledge that the 1900D out climbs all the other 19 seat aircraft and most of the 30+ seat aircraft such as the Dash 8-100/200 and Saab 340 A/B.
I have flown the 1900D and the J31 (not the 32), and I've found the 1900D likes(needs) to be flown at F200- F230. The J31 and the J32 (we are currently do a route study) likes( works best) between F150 and F180.
When looking at field performance the 1900D takes a big hit if you don't have anti-skid fitted. This option, which most 1900D that are on the market (being ex-US aircraft) don't have will set you back $80000 USD to fit. Anti-skid is standard on the J31/J32. If you want to fit an Autopilot to a B1900D it will cost you $200000 USD. Although the Autopilot is an option on the J31/32 most operators in Europe have it fitted. The US operators didn't, but it will only cost $60-80000 USD to have it fitted on the J31/32.
With regard to galley's, the company I flew the 1900D had a few of theirs fitted with a scaled down galley area in the front coat area. We handled out cold drinks and sandwiches.
The big difference in the aircraft is cost. The current average price of a used B1900D is $2.2M USD. A J32 will sent you back $500000 USD, so you can buy 4 for the price of 1 1900D.
Climb to FL240 (ISA temp -33)
Time: 15 mins
Dist: 42 nm
Fuel: 255 Ibs (not including taxi or start fuel)
Prop RPM: 1550
ITT: 720
Climb Speed:160 (SL to 10000') 150 (10000' to 15000') 140 (15000' to 20000') 130 (20000' to 25000')
HSC Cruise at FL240 ISA
TAS: 275 Kts
Fuel Flow: 774 Ibs/hr
Prop: 1550 RPM
And some figures from the J32 Crew Manual
Climb to FL240 (ISA)
Time: 26.1 mins
Dist: 82.7 nm
Fuel: 146 kg (321 Ibs)
97% RPM
TQE: 96.1% at start, 52.9% at F240
Flows Postion 5
HSC Cruise at FL240 ISA
TAS: 243
Fuel Flow: 258 kg(568 Ibs)/hr
97% RPM
So based on these Flight Manual figures the B1900D wins hands down. It is common knowledge that the 1900D out climbs all the other 19 seat aircraft and most of the 30+ seat aircraft such as the Dash 8-100/200 and Saab 340 A/B.
I have flown the 1900D and the J31 (not the 32), and I've found the 1900D likes(needs) to be flown at F200- F230. The J31 and the J32 (we are currently do a route study) likes( works best) between F150 and F180.
When looking at field performance the 1900D takes a big hit if you don't have anti-skid fitted. This option, which most 1900D that are on the market (being ex-US aircraft) don't have will set you back $80000 USD to fit. Anti-skid is standard on the J31/J32. If you want to fit an Autopilot to a B1900D it will cost you $200000 USD. Although the Autopilot is an option on the J31/32 most operators in Europe have it fitted. The US operators didn't, but it will only cost $60-80000 USD to have it fitted on the J31/32.
With regard to galley's, the company I flew the 1900D had a few of theirs fitted with a scaled down galley area in the front coat area. We handled out cold drinks and sandwiches.
The big difference in the aircraft is cost. The current average price of a used B1900D is $2.2M USD. A J32 will sent you back $500000 USD, so you can buy 4 for the price of 1 1900D.
F111,
Nice work. Very interesing figures.
Are you able to also do a comparison for a flight at FL160, with the J32 using 100% in the climb and 97% in the cruise and the B1900 using whatever it is that they use at that altitude?
Or better still. A comparison for a flight from WN-CH (or something similar) with each aircraft cruising at their optimum altitude.
Purely for interest. Not wanting to start even more arguments.
Cheers
S2K4 eva
Nice work. Very interesing figures.
Are you able to also do a comparison for a flight at FL160, with the J32 using 100% in the climb and 97% in the cruise and the B1900 using whatever it is that they use at that altitude?
Or better still. A comparison for a flight from WN-CH (or something similar) with each aircraft cruising at their optimum altitude.
Purely for interest. Not wanting to start even more arguments.
Cheers
S2K4 eva
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Knock Shop
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Round of milkshakes for the ladies....easy on the Ice cream ehh....
Come on guys why do you persist with this same topic over and over its been done to death...who cares!!
They both dont have hosties, Neither the Soda Stream or horsey Float realy out preform each other and as Im shure some of you may agree that they are both far better then the Aztruck......(not that theres anything wrong with the Truck)
If you fly these types in NZ maybe you should be putting your efforts into getting some better pay and conditions for yourselfs goodness knows you boys could do with it
Peace be with you
Come on guys why do you persist with this same topic over and over its been done to death...who cares!!
They both dont have hosties, Neither the Soda Stream or horsey Float realy out preform each other and as Im shure some of you may agree that they are both far better then the Aztruck......(not that theres anything wrong with the Truck)
If you fly these types in NZ maybe you should be putting your efforts into getting some better pay and conditions for yourselfs goodness knows you boys could do with it
Peace be with you
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent! Great to see there is someone sadder than me... 
haughtney1
You naughty, naughty boy...
How dare you diss the queen of the skies... 
That's because it doesn't produce enough gas to do the job...
Besides the 757/767 has gassed a lot more people than the 146 ever did. Every turbine-powered aircraft has the potential to do this.
Well, it certainly is part of a dog... more like the bit next to the bollo$ks, though. You'd have to be pretty desperate to like the Q400... 
haughtney1
You naughty, naughty boy...
Probably faster than a 146
Last time I was on a 1900 it wasnt gassing the flight deck crew though!
Besides the 757/767 has gassed a lot more people than the 146 ever did. Every turbine-powered aircraft has the potential to do this.
you know the Q400 is the dogs Bollo$ks!!!!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
MOR
the mighty 757/767 only gasses those that choose to stand near the toilets..............
And a transmission from Gatwick director........"bigstar 207....reduce 160kts........flybe101..(a so-called queen of the skies 146)..anything above 140 would be good..I wanna go home today!"......hoots and snorts on freq for about 5 mins afterwards!
Seriously though..you gotta love the 146..built like a tank..chinook engines..hence the STOL performance..and a decent front office for fatties!!
Cheers H
the mighty 757/767 only gasses those that choose to stand near the toilets..............
And a transmission from Gatwick director........"bigstar 207....reduce 160kts........flybe101..(a so-called queen of the skies 146)..anything above 140 would be good..I wanna go home today!"......hoots and snorts on freq for about 5 mins afterwards!
Seriously though..you gotta love the 146..built like a tank..chinook engines..hence the STOL performance..and a decent front office for fatties!!
Cheers H
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haughtney1
Nope sorry, got your facts wrong there me old china. And I quote:
More at http://www.aopis.org/BALPA757SURVEYp253-262.pdf
As for speed... routinely ran to 8 miles at 250 kts, only to be slowed down by the Birdseed doing 140 at 15D... no reason at all why you can't keep the speed up on a 146, thank that nice big airbrake and monster flaps. A 146 will out-brake a 757/737/A320 any day of the week.
Yes it is built heavy, which is why bits of it don't fall off as they do on Boeings. No 146 has ever had a structural failure, or any mechanical failure, that led to an accident. Unlike your Boeings and Airbus.
And besides, the Queen has one, so it must be the best aircraft money can buy...
Nope sorry, got your facts wrong there me old china. And I quote:
A survey of health symptoms was
undertaken in pilots who were members of
the British Airline Pilots Association flying
the Boeing 737, Boeing 757 and Airbus
A320. Six hundred questionnaires were
sent out to members, and 106 pilots
responded. Survey respondents were
predominantly male (104/106) and many
had extensive flying experience. With
regard to leak events (that is, leaks of
engine oil and hydraulic fluids into the
aircraft), 93/106 reported that they had
been involved in at least one. The total
number of incidents reported was
estimated to be 1,674+, with all but seven
occurring on the B757.
undertaken in pilots who were members of
the British Airline Pilots Association flying
the Boeing 737, Boeing 757 and Airbus
A320. Six hundred questionnaires were
sent out to members, and 106 pilots
responded. Survey respondents were
predominantly male (104/106) and many
had extensive flying experience. With
regard to leak events (that is, leaks of
engine oil and hydraulic fluids into the
aircraft), 93/106 reported that they had
been involved in at least one. The total
number of incidents reported was
estimated to be 1,674+, with all but seven
occurring on the B757.
As for speed... routinely ran to 8 miles at 250 kts, only to be slowed down by the Birdseed doing 140 at 15D... no reason at all why you can't keep the speed up on a 146, thank that nice big airbrake and monster flaps. A 146 will out-brake a 757/737/A320 any day of the week.
Yes it is built heavy, which is why bits of it don't fall off as they do on Boeings. No 146 has ever had a structural failure, or any mechanical failure, that led to an accident. Unlike your Boeings and Airbus.
And besides, the Queen has one, so it must be the best aircraft money can buy...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK NE Scotland
Age: 59
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR,
'I used to operate the J32 out of such tiny strips as Scatsta'
pray tell when would that have been then? Can't remember seeing a J32 there..
In reverse order
146 Flightline
ATP BWA
Dash 7 Brymon
Shorts 330 can't remember who (best forgotten really)
748 Dan air (mid eighties)
Late 70's early 80's there was a selection of smaller aircraft used - is the J32 that old?
'I used to operate the J32 out of such tiny strips as Scatsta'
pray tell when would that have been then? Can't remember seeing a J32 there..
In reverse order
146 Flightline
ATP BWA
Dash 7 Brymon
Shorts 330 can't remember who (best forgotten really)
748 Dan air (mid eighties)
Late 70's early 80's there was a selection of smaller aircraft used - is the J32 that old?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Loganair operated the J32 in there for a few months from august 1991. It was at the request of the refinery at Sullum Voe, and was done on the promise of a runway extension at the "uphill" end. However, local politics got in the way and it was never done - I seem to recall there was road along the threshold that "couldn't be moved" or something. It was all politics - the Islands Council was trying to promote Sumburgh at the time, and didn't like us sneaking up to Scatsta. Loganair ceased the service, as the J32 performance wasn't really up to the short runway.
I heard that the runway was finally extended in 1996, but by then Loganair was back to being a Shorts 360 operator. I was doing other things in deepest, darkest Norwich.
The J31 entered service in 1982 and the J32 in 1988.
haughtney1
No research needed, it is all on the thread about fumes - http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=172223
The rest I knew, I'm a very learned chap you know...
Not sure about your aunt, maybe she was the one in 4F the other day complaining about the ride. Please take her aside and give her a good talking to. If I see her again, I'll let her know you are looking for her.
I heard that the runway was finally extended in 1996, but by then Loganair was back to being a Shorts 360 operator. I was doing other things in deepest, darkest Norwich.
The J31 entered service in 1982 and the J32 in 1988.
haughtney1
No research needed, it is all on the thread about fumes - http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=172223
The rest I knew, I'm a very learned chap you know...
Not sure about your aunt, maybe she was the one in 4F the other day complaining about the ride. Please take her aside and give her a good talking to. If I see her again, I'll let her know you are looking for her.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK NE Scotland
Age: 59
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR, don't remember the J32's being there, do remember some BA liveried aircraft being allowed to divert there until LSI spat the dummy out. Scatsta was lengthened (3150ft) and the road moved around the end of the extension. 146's doing a sterling job despite the 'variable' weather conditions. Nothing like a full power/handbrake on depature with a 40 knot crosswind and only a handful of passengers.....Flightline guys do a bloody good job keeping things moving.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well... I do, and I was flying the plane! Checked my logbook, sure enough the entries are there. We even did some training there. I must have been in there 20 times or so. I may even have taken some pictures.
Scatsta was never as much fun as Sumburgh though. Nothing beats a visual onto 33...
We were in and out of there three times a day when the Braer sank nearby. The TAF mentioned no precipitation, and a temp well above freezing, but there was a runway friction group which gave the braking action as poor/poor/poor. When we questioned the tower, they told us it was due to oil blowing across the runway from the Braer, and they had no met code for that!
Sure enough it was very slippery, and even using full reverse we were lucky to stop.
And then there was Lerwick...
Scatsta was never as much fun as Sumburgh though. Nothing beats a visual onto 33...
We were in and out of there three times a day when the Braer sank nearby. The TAF mentioned no precipitation, and a temp well above freezing, but there was a runway friction group which gave the braking action as poor/poor/poor. When we questioned the tower, they told us it was due to oil blowing across the runway from the Braer, and they had no met code for that!
Sure enough it was very slippery, and even using full reverse we were lucky to stop.
And then there was Lerwick...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely no reason not to if your landing performance tables allow it (unless the crosswind is limiting of course).
Would you refuse to land at, say, Charles De Gaulle if you were flying a J32 - just because the braking action was poor? You have three times as much runway as you would need if there was no braking at all.
People who do that sort of thing tend not to last very long in airline flying...
Would you refuse to land at, say, Charles De Gaulle if you were flying a J32 - just because the braking action was poor? You have three times as much runway as you would need if there was no braking at all.
People who do that sort of thing tend not to last very long in airline flying...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Rainforest
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Braking action "poor"data reflects runways covered with wet ice"(JAROPS/FAA/BOEING).Nothing about oil.To land on a runway covered with oil would be beyond the scope of your performance manual and braking action reports at best subjective.
Furthermore,Friction Coefficient/Braking action is given as a two figure group(ie 91=poor) and percentage of runway contaminated.
Not as (poor/poor/poor).Only RVR is given as such depending on the no of Transmissometers.
Runway state is only given in Metars/Specis and sometimes ATIS ie Frankfurt)
NOT TAFs,you cannot predict present runway state.
If you ever get to fly a big jet doubtful any operator will let you land less than Braking action Medium even at CDG!
Furthermore,Friction Coefficient/Braking action is given as a two figure group(ie 91=poor) and percentage of runway contaminated.
Not as (poor/poor/poor).Only RVR is given as such depending on the no of Transmissometers.
Runway state is only given in Metars/Specis and sometimes ATIS ie Frankfurt)
NOT TAFs,you cannot predict present runway state.
If you ever get to fly a big jet doubtful any operator will let you land less than Braking action Medium even at CDG!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: AWOL
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interviews 1st week of June, for a course 20-25th.
Good Luck to all contenders.
When do new F/O's find out where they'll be based?
Anyone know where they anticipate gaps?
Good Luck to all contenders.
When do new F/O's find out where they'll be based?
Anyone know where they anticipate gaps?
Last edited by GloryDays; 22nd May 2005 at 09:40.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Borneo Wild Man
Sorry, should have been more specific. The friction group wasn't part of the TAF, it was part of our pre-flight company briefing package (of which the TAF formed a part). The main contents of the pack were TAFs, METARs, SIGWX, the charts that are now 214/215, upper wind charts, etc.
We were passed the figures as a telex from the handling agent in Sumburgh. They were performed using a Tapley meter.
ICAO Annex 14 Paragraph 6.7 says that friction necessarily has to be presented for each third of a runway.
ICAO Airport Services Manual, Part 2, ICAO Doc. 9137-AN/898 chapters 9 and 10 refers to clearance of Oil and/or Grease and Debris.
The airport had decided to make the friction measurement and present it in SNOWTAM form, which gave them certain problems in getting the required information across. You aren't supposed to use SNOWTAM for other contaminants. Hence the confusion.
If you look here http://www.hilmerby.com/fom/proc_snowt.html , you will find a SNOWTAM decoder and you will note that runway friction is indeed stated as a reading for each third of the runway, with POOR being a coefficient of .25 or below.
I have, and you are partly right - but we weren't in a jet, were in a Jetstream. Different picture entirely. My point remains that you are perfectly at lliberty to land in POOR conditions if your landing performance data allows you to. This data is part of your Ops Manual.
Sorry, should have been more specific. The friction group wasn't part of the TAF, it was part of our pre-flight company briefing package (of which the TAF formed a part). The main contents of the pack were TAFs, METARs, SIGWX, the charts that are now 214/215, upper wind charts, etc.
We were passed the figures as a telex from the handling agent in Sumburgh. They were performed using a Tapley meter.
ICAO Annex 14 Paragraph 6.7 says that friction necessarily has to be presented for each third of a runway.
ICAO Airport Services Manual, Part 2, ICAO Doc. 9137-AN/898 chapters 9 and 10 refers to clearance of Oil and/or Grease and Debris.
The airport had decided to make the friction measurement and present it in SNOWTAM form, which gave them certain problems in getting the required information across. You aren't supposed to use SNOWTAM for other contaminants. Hence the confusion.
If you look here http://www.hilmerby.com/fom/proc_snowt.html , you will find a SNOWTAM decoder and you will note that runway friction is indeed stated as a reading for each third of the runway, with POOR being a coefficient of .25 or below.
If you ever get to fly a big jet doubtful any operator will let you land less than Braking action Medium even at CDG!