Airtest – Beech 1900

For many years the manufacturers had been hampered through the regulatory process from building more functional aircraft. The 12,500lb gross takeoff weight ruling had been the real miscreant. The new Special FAR 41C removed this arbitrary barrier in the USA and replaced it with a more logical maximum seating limit of 19 passengers. A commendably sensible solution, after all the aircraft manufacturers had already built very strong examples of 19 seaters such as the Swearingen Metro and Handley Page Jetstream and these aircraft could carry a full load of passengers albeit over relatively short stage lengths. The change of ruling allowed the operators to uplift more fuel and install a better avionics fit and still carry the 19 passengers, but now over a far more viable stage length with a safer aircraft.

A rotational demarcation line between ‘small’ and ‘large’ aircraft had finally been found – passengers as opposed to gross weight. If the expectation of safety is supposedly less for aircraft certified to the small aircraft rules rather than large aircraft rules (FAR 23 vs FAR 25) then it stands to reason that the acceptable risk, that is the number of people at risk in a single aircraft accident should take precedent over the wreck tonnage. In fact, the manufacturers proved that when human factors were taken into account (pilot error and maintenance blunders) their FAR 23 aircraft had fewer machinery-related incidents than the supposedly safer FAR 25 aircraft. So SFAR 41C can only enhance the safety of these aircraft by requiring greater takeoff safety and landing margins and ensuring better single-engine climb performance over the standard FAR 23 aircraft.

Beech had already enjoyed considerable success in the commuter market with the Beech 99 and prior to closing the production line in 1975, due to a protracted period of slow commuter activity, the manufacturer had sold over 164 aircraft. Deregulation reintroduced expansion to the ailing commuter market and Beech was looking to return to the market with the development of the unpressurised 899 and a new 19 passenger aircraft it wanted to develop called the Beech 1900.

When Linden Blue became president of Beech Aircraft Corporation in 1982, he recognised the success of the Beech 99 and decided that the Company would once again stand behind the world’s commuter airlines and gave the go-ahead to built the C99 and Beech 1900.

The Beech 1900 stands tall on the ramp rather than reminding one on the Metroliner, however, a quick inspection reveals the King Air genealogy. The forward fuselage is unmistakably King Air as is the wing contour but the empennage, whilst reminiscent of the Super 200, has grown some unfamiliar appendages. Protruding from the outer lower section of the stabilizer are tail-lets. These assist in keeping the aircraft directionally stable and whilst there is a yaw damper installed, this is now not a ‘no-go’ item should it fail as the tail-lets will cope adequately.

Below the T-tail, mounted horizontally on either side of the rear fuselage are two fixed composite material structures known as stabilons. These small wings vastly expand the 1900’s centre of gravity envelope allowing passengers or baggage to be dispersed throughout the aircraft without adversely affecting the aircraft’s trim or stability. The 1900 can fly without them very well, but then the CofG movement is far more critical and restrictive.

The wing contour and span is identical to the King Air 200 and 300, although to reduce stall speeds Beech have added some small strakes at the leading edge of the wing root and vortex generators on top of the wing between the nacelles and fuselage. Presently the wing will uplift 1608 litres of Avtur, however, Beech engineers found that by removing the fuel cells and utilising the full wing cavity, thus creating a wet wing, increased their fuel storage to 2535 litres. Whilst future 1900’s will have this additional fuel, significantly increasing their range, there are no plans to increase the gross weight which remains at 16,600Ibs (7536kg). This means that occasionally there will be a trade off between passengers and fuel uplift, but there will be significant added flexibility for operators to uplift fuel at the most competitive prices. Another welcome change to the wing is the incorporation of a new one piece main spar, making a far stronger and simpler structure and dispensing with the bath tub fittings and bolts common to other Beech installations.

Quite different from any previous King Airs are the four bladed Hartzell propellers. These are constructed of a foam core composite material and are of light weight, strong and field repairable. Attached to these state-of-the-art propellers are the familiar Pratt & Whitney PT6 engines. In this installation, it is the PT6A-65B flat-rated to 1,100shp at sea level to an incredible 48°C. This means that for Australian operations you would almost always expect 1,100shp. The engines were originally flatrated to 1,000shp, however, subsequent flight testing proved that Beech could increase the gross weight by 1,355Ibs (615kg) to 16,600Ibs (7536kg) and still maintain all previous performance guarantees by simply increasing the flat-rating to 1,100 shaft horse power. The increased gross weight gives the 1900 a payload of almost 5,000lbs (2270kg) depending on avionics and interior fit.

The fuselage shares the same ‘squared-oval’ cross section of the King Air series, however, it has been stretched by 17 feet whilst the rear fuselage has been cropped by 3 feet. This means the 1900 lacks the graceful lines of the Super 200’s rear fuselage but to provide maximum usable space and avoid an excessively long fuselage the cropped tail was a necessary compromise.

The original advertising material and indeed the original airframes were fitted with two airstair doors (one for hard and aft of the wing) with a rear cargo door as an option. Potential customers of the 1900 told Beech that in their experience they felt the cargo door should be standard. Consequently, all 1900’s now come with a rear cargo door and forward airstair.

Opening the cargo door exposes a Kevlar lined area of 154 cubic feet capable of carrying 1,510Ibs (685kg) of cargo. If 154 cubic feet is not enough then the forward cargo bulkhead can be moved to suit the operator’s requirement. Whilst this will reduce the available cabin space the operator does have the flexibility to alter his cargo/passenger mix by simply relocating the cargo bulkhead. An additional area of 13 cubic feet capable of holding 150 (68kg) of baggage or onboard aircraft spares can be found in the forward fuselage nose section. The first King Air with a nose locker.

The aircraft floor is a state-of-the-art nomex cell faced with fibreglass and designed and constructed in sections to facilitate removal for maintenance or inspection without disrupting the rest of the passenger cabin structure. The aisle section of the flat floor has been strengthened to take the extra wear that would not be expected under the seats. This area has enjoyed a weight saving. The side walls are faced with Tedlar, a new DuPont product giving colour and a durable finish to the material. To avoid the tunnel effect of such a long cabin, the Beech engineers designed sculptured overhead panels which also house the lighting fixtures and speakers. These panels are fastened with Velcro, again to facilitate easy access in the event of maintenance. Interestingly the window frames, headliner and overhead service units are all formed with the assistance of a new vacuum system. The engineers have developed a forming tool on which they place the appropriate coloured vinyl. Vacuum is applied to ensure the vinyl conforms to the tool, then polyurathane foam is sprayed over the vinyl and six minutes later the new piece of cabin liner can be removed and fitted into place on the airframe.

Another feature to facilitate maintenance is the location of the electrical looms in either the floor or lower sidewalls. These areas have been made easily and quickly accessible by the use of ‘snap off’ sectioned cover panels. Ease of maintenance and the development of weight saving techniques have been prime objectives of the Beech engineers of this project. Even the seat track system did not escape their analytical eyes. They have developed a system which locates two legs of the chair on a floor mounted track as per standard practice. But the second track is actually an extrusion that is mounted to the side wall through to the skin. This gives additional strength and support and yet saves weight. The seats are very comfortable and quite comparable to any economy airline seats. They are of light weight construction and have the usual integral drop-down table integrated into the back rest. The entire seat weighs only 10lbs (4. 5kg) and is quickly removable and can be folded down into a six inch package for stowage if additional cargo space is required.

The flight deck will make any King Air pilot feel at home, all the switches and gauges are in their old places, however, there is an emphasis toward two pilot operations. For ease of maintenance and to keep weight down the King avionics are panel mounted. Collins Proline is available as an option. However, most operators will probably opt for the convenience of being able to quickly replace a faulty panel-mounted unit. The Beech 1900 has been certified for both Collins and Sperry autopilots and flight directors, although I am advised that very few operators install these options. With two crew operations over relatively short stage lengths, it is not unusual for airlines to dispense with autopilots and flight directors on stable aircraft like the 1900, particularly in the interests of simplicity and reduced maintenance costs. The Hawker Pacific demonstrator had both a flight director and autopilot fitted.

Hawker Pacific’s Captain Rod Mendham was the demonstration pilot and he advised that our flight test would be from Bankstown with a climb and cruise at FL140 to Bathurst. There we would do some circuit work then return at FL150 to Bankstown via the Sydney 062 localizer.

We had a 25°C day for our departure and runway 29 centre was in use (TODA of 1,171 metres). The graphs divulged that under these conditions, with takeoff flap selected, our takeoff weight, based on takeoff distance available, would be 16,600Ibs (7536kg). However, our accelerate-stop distance reduced this weight to only 12,400Ibs (7014kg) and the accelerate-go distance further eroded this weight to only 13,400Ibs (6083kg). So to uplift a better payload we chose approach flap. This still gave a 16,600lbs (7536kg) takeoff weight based on TODA. Acceleratestop reduced the weight only slightly to 16,250Ibs (7377kg) and accelerate-go now allowed a takeoff weight of 14,900Ibs (6764kg). Whilst this is a full 1,700Ibs (772kg) under gross weight it allowed a crew of two, 2,700Ibs (1225kg) of fuel (almost full fuel) and fifteen passengers. Now that is a flexible commuter aircraft, the old Metroliner would probably uplift only half that payload under the same conditions.

The day was hot and humid, so once the airstair door was closed we quickly got down to the business of the checklist so that we could start the right hand engine. This allowed us to bring the very efficient environmental system on line. Beech have retained their familiar freon vapour cycle cooling system (housed in the right hand wing root in this installation -remember the nose area has been converted to a luggage locker). They have also added an air cycle machine located in the left hand wing root.

The flight deck and cabin quickly cooled as we started the second engine and completed the checklist. As I taxied forward Rod explained that the optional power steering system installed in this aircraft (operated by the rudder pedals) had two positions. A close manoeuvring position to get out of tight places and taxi position for smooth taxiing and runway control. The close manoeuvring position allows the aircraft to be turned within a 39ft 4in (12m) radius. Rod demonstrated this by turning between two aircraft, I braced for the inevitable crunch but Rod knew his and turned within the given space without Incident. As we continued taxiing to runway 29C we switched back to the less sensitive mode which made for very smooth handling with easy speed control by gentle application of ground fine pitch on the propellers.

We parked in the run up bay to await our clearance and complete the pre-takeoff checks. Our decision speed was calculated at 102kts and our takeoff safety speed would be 112kts. We duly received our clearance, completed the takeoff briefing and lined up on 29C. Acceleration was smooth and positive and we climbed away in typical propjet fashion. There was a degree of convective turbulence below 10,000 feet so we opted for a steep climb angle which returned 2,5OOfpm and were soon into smoother air where we could let the aircraft accelerate to and accept a lower rate of climb.

I enjoyed hand flying the 1900, the aircraft was pleasantly responsive and as expected directionally stable. I couldn’t help but agree that an autopilot was unnecessary. All too soon it was time for our descent into Bathurst. The 1900 has a maximum pressure differential of 4. 8psi, this is down somewhat from the Super 200 at 6Opsi but more than adequate for the altitudes th Bathurst circuit height there was no further adjustment required to the pressurisation system.

As we descended I let the speed bleed back to 14OKIAS to join downwind, then 11OKIAS on base leg with a final approach speed of 1OOK IAS. The aircraft still felt positive and well-mannered. The touchdown, though not hard, caught me a little by surprise as I had not allowed for the fact that we were sitting so far ahead of the main whee ls. We therefore required a little more flare than I had allowed. Tracking down the runway on rollout was straight and predictable. We then turned around and taxied back for our departure, this time Rod gave me an engine failure at about 300 feet. The Requircraft remained directionally stable and measured only minor adjustments to the rudder trim, the rollable showily coning a climb rate of about 6OOfpm. Quite respectable.

We continued our climb with both engines producing power and I took the opportunity to take a walk through the cabin, finding the cab in noise levels to be quite acceptable, in fact the noisiest part of the aircraft is probably the flight deck and even there one does not have to strain the vocal cords to be heard. Beech have treated the cabin area from just ahead of the prop arc back to the wing spar with a sound-suppressing lead vinyl coating and this does seem to work very well. Visibility out of the cabin windows was very good and the overall feel of the passenger cabin was very comfortable. I moved forward again to strap myself in as we were now ready for descent into Bankstown and about to join the 062 localizer is aircraft will be operating in. As Rod had already selected the

The 1900 tracks the localizer very well and once the aircraft is trimmed it is virtually a hands off situation. We continued our descent and broke off the approach to enter the Bankstown control zone. Rod had told me that the aircraft had very good short field performance so I asked him to demonstrate a short field landing. We were cleared for runway 29C and Rod had the speed back to 100KIAS early in the approach. We crossed the threshold at a little under 90KIAS and were safely stopped and taxiing by the first available taxiway. A distance of probably under 500 feet. Very impressive for a non STOL aircraft. If it were not for the required accelerate-go distance the 1900 would be ideal for the Sydney/Lord Howe Island operation.

The Beech 1900 is an ideal aircraft for the Australian commuter market. It has just the right number of seats to ensure profit-ability on the vast majority of our commuter runs whilst ensuring good frequency. It has been designed with ample baggage and cargo space with the ability to uplift these with a full load of passengers. The Beech engineers have kept the aircraft simple and functional with an eye on maintainability which should lead to unsurpassed reliability in high utilization operations. With the new wet wing option the 1900 will offer excellent flexibility in regional operations by allowing the operator to uplift fuel at the most competitive price on multi stage flights.

The pressurised commuter will also prove popular with passengers. Beside the obvious advantage of being able to climb above convective turbulence into the smoother air of the flight levels. Pressurisation will allow more comfortable flights during steeper climbs and descents that will enable the operator to save time even on shorter stage lengths.

Beech have a winner with the 1900, it is an excellent aircraft for Australian conditions. The only drawback is the sorry state of our dollar which prices the aircraft at around $5 million, however, the competition has the same problem. Hawker Pacific certainly believe they have a good future with the aircraft with very strong interest shown from several operators in South East Asia and Australia.