![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Question to Trevor: I have been writing much of this piece. The cruise speed is reported in TAS, whereas the Vmo is reported in IAS. Obviously an aircraft cannot cruise 12 knots faster than its maximum speed. Because different units are used, it can cruise at 260 TAS while the maximum speed is limited to 248 IAS. Since you want to drop the IAS and TAS labels, how do we resolve this?
Regarding the trouble of the fire detection system on the B200, a SB has been improuved for a long time, witch is consists of sheets of metal installed on the exhaust flanges and avoid the sun lights to penetrate under the engine coolings and activate the fire detection optical device under a certain angle. I operate on the Be-1900D in Europe for a long time, and I never heard criticism is for a poor performance of this aeroplane. Sorry for my poor english skill.
"The Beechcraft 1900 has been criticized for poor performance, poor temperature control, high noise levels, and generally uncomfortable flights"
Does anyone have a source for that? I can't say I've ever heard such criticism before. Nick Moss 08:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Additional comments :
This article needs to work on the failed criterion to better the quality and presentation of it. More comments could be made on the prose and all that but I will wait for a reply at GA or on my talk page to give more insight into what is to change on/add to the article. Lincher 01:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, references should use a citation template ({{ cite}}, {{ cite web}}, {{ cite news}} etc). It's not required... but it's nice. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a Beech 1900 AFM in front of me, nor do I know performance figures for the aircraft, but I would be mildly shocked if FL250 is actually the aircraft's service ceiling (i.e., where its rate of climb drops to 100 FPM). Mike, can you confirm the exact wording (preferably backed up by a performance chart) in the AFM regarding this altitude?-- chris. lawson 10:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, Chris. Thank you for the correction. The aircraft is certified to fly up to FL250, not above. The airplane certainly has the power and lift to operate at higher altitudes. The pressurization system on the -D only allows for 5.1psid, which results in a 9,125' cabin at FL250. In addition, there are additional certification requirements for the airplane if it operates above FL250, and crews must have high-altitude endorsements above FL250. I am correcting that section. Again, thank you for your catch. Mikepurves 20:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I have assessed this article according to the GA criteria, and have decided to put it on hold until the following items are fixed. If they are not fixed within seven days, I will fail the article where it can be renominated on a later date.
Add citations for:
Once the above items are fixed within seven days I will pass the article. If you don't think that you can fix them by then, please let me know and I'll fail it for now and you can renominate it later. Good job on the article so far, it just needs some more adjustments before being passed. -- Nehrams2020 04:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I am going to fail the article for now since the above information has not been addressed. Once those suggestions are fixed, please do consider renominating again, or let me know and I'll pass it right away after they're fixed. Good job so far, keep working at it. -- Nehrams2020 22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The propellers are composite on the 1900C also.
---
Says who? The post is not signed.
To the writer of the above post, do you have any source for this information? 76.224.119.45 09:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that a search for B1900 redirects to epoch? Not sure if it's a common enough use to make it worth a disambig page or some other solution Jddriessen ( talk) 12:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I corrected two changes which were previously made in February, 2008, and elaborated on a third.
The correct number of aircraft is 695, not 685. 3 UAs, 74 UBs, 174 UCs, 6 UDs, and 438 UEs were built: = 695.
SmackBot demanded verification that AvGas is a permitted fuel. It is. The Aircraft Flight Manual authorizes the limited use of aviation grade gasoline as a temporary or emergency fuel, with limitations. The lowest available grade of fuel (preferably 80 low lead) should be used, the aircraft is limited to a ceiling of 18,000' due to the risk of vapor lock at higher altitudes, auxiliary fuel pumps must be run continuously, and the aircraft cannot be operated for more than 100 cumulative hours on AvGas without having a hot section inspection, due to potential lead fouling of the turbine blades. This is all per the AFM. From 2001 to 2007, I flew the 1900D for six years for a now-defunct Part 121 regional airline (Skyway Airlines), and from 2004 to 2007, I was a Check Airman authorized by the FAA to train, qualify and check pilots for Skyway.
Fuel range: The fuel range of the 1900D is well over 1,000 miles. Cruising fuel consumption is about 600 lb/hr, and it has a fuel capacity of 4,484 pounds. Even allowing for the extra fuel burn of takeoff and climb to its service ceiling of 25,000', this provides a range of more than 5 hours. Without accounting for the effects of wind, that allows for flights of more than 1,500 miles nonstop.
Most airlines operate the airplane on legs ranging from 20-30 minutes to two hours (60 to 600 miles), for two reasons. One, passenger comforts are limited: there is no flight attendant or food/beverage galley, the cabin is louder than most jet aircraft, and many operators do not include the optional lavatory. Two, on flights up to an hour, the 1900's speed difference as compared to jets doesn't significantly affect flight times. (All aircraft have to slow to 250 knots below 10,000'. Thus, the takeoff, climb, later descent and landing speeds are similar to jets.) Cruising at 300 v. 450 knots TAS is not significant on short flights when nearly as much time is spent in the terminal area as in cruise. However, the longer the flights get, and the greater the percentage of the flight that is spent in cruise, the more significant the cruise speed differences become. It is usually not practical to carry passengers on flights of more than two hours (600 mi.).
Mikepurves ( talk) 05:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk updated Mikepurves ( talk) 20:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Can the 1900C also accommodate a lavatory, or is this solely restricted to the 1900D? Greg Salter ( talk) 00:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Both can be equipped with a Lav. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.147.58.75 ( talk) 03:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
What about Let L-410 Turbolet? - has sold more than 11 hundred versus 695 for the Beechcraft! ( Poligraf P. Sharikov ( talk) 11:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
Isn't File:ContinentalConnection.jpg also a 1900? 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 13:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
...is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Beechcraft_1900. - Ahunt ( talk) 21:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
See [1]. This is the same airport and runway as the first crash listed from 1987. Early reports indicate pilot error may be to blame but nothing is official yet. There were no injuries. I may be able to get an image, the plane is still sitting at the airport and I live nearby to it. The landing gear is back down now but you can see the flat tires and the probably the prop damage as well. I imagine it will be there a while as NTSB investigates, if it seems notable enough for a mention here let me know and I will try to get and good shot of it, although it is behind the airport fence. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Beechcraft 1900/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
B=at least until peer review is done Does not cite sources, does not adhere to WP:MOS (intro too short, etc.) - Emt147 Burninate! 00:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 00:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 09:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
With this change User:BilCat undid my word change in one place from "certificated" to "certified".
I'm not too het up about this, but the ES says "correct term". In that case, the other four uses of "certified" should presumably be changed to "certificated". I know that in English there is no noun that cannot be verbed, but we tend to aim for consistency within articles. Wiktionary defines "certificate" (verb) as "to supply with a certificate", which is just the end result of the process of certifying something.
Thanks 178.164.139.37 ( talk) 04:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Per image styling
MOS:IMAGELOCATION: "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text "
- and a notation from an editor stating "
As a style point it is better to have noses of aircraft and engines facing the text" -What's the reasoning to counter that thinking?
FOX 52
talk! 04:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Question to Trevor: I have been writing much of this piece. The cruise speed is reported in TAS, whereas the Vmo is reported in IAS. Obviously an aircraft cannot cruise 12 knots faster than its maximum speed. Because different units are used, it can cruise at 260 TAS while the maximum speed is limited to 248 IAS. Since you want to drop the IAS and TAS labels, how do we resolve this?
Regarding the trouble of the fire detection system on the B200, a SB has been improuved for a long time, witch is consists of sheets of metal installed on the exhaust flanges and avoid the sun lights to penetrate under the engine coolings and activate the fire detection optical device under a certain angle. I operate on the Be-1900D in Europe for a long time, and I never heard criticism is for a poor performance of this aeroplane. Sorry for my poor english skill.
"The Beechcraft 1900 has been criticized for poor performance, poor temperature control, high noise levels, and generally uncomfortable flights"
Does anyone have a source for that? I can't say I've ever heard such criticism before. Nick Moss 08:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Additional comments :
This article needs to work on the failed criterion to better the quality and presentation of it. More comments could be made on the prose and all that but I will wait for a reply at GA or on my talk page to give more insight into what is to change on/add to the article. Lincher 01:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, references should use a citation template ({{ cite}}, {{ cite web}}, {{ cite news}} etc). It's not required... but it's nice. — Disavian ( talk/ contribs) 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a Beech 1900 AFM in front of me, nor do I know performance figures for the aircraft, but I would be mildly shocked if FL250 is actually the aircraft's service ceiling (i.e., where its rate of climb drops to 100 FPM). Mike, can you confirm the exact wording (preferably backed up by a performance chart) in the AFM regarding this altitude?-- chris. lawson 10:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, Chris. Thank you for the correction. The aircraft is certified to fly up to FL250, not above. The airplane certainly has the power and lift to operate at higher altitudes. The pressurization system on the -D only allows for 5.1psid, which results in a 9,125' cabin at FL250. In addition, there are additional certification requirements for the airplane if it operates above FL250, and crews must have high-altitude endorsements above FL250. I am correcting that section. Again, thank you for your catch. Mikepurves 20:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I have assessed this article according to the GA criteria, and have decided to put it on hold until the following items are fixed. If they are not fixed within seven days, I will fail the article where it can be renominated on a later date.
Add citations for:
Once the above items are fixed within seven days I will pass the article. If you don't think that you can fix them by then, please let me know and I'll fail it for now and you can renominate it later. Good job on the article so far, it just needs some more adjustments before being passed. -- Nehrams2020 04:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I am going to fail the article for now since the above information has not been addressed. Once those suggestions are fixed, please do consider renominating again, or let me know and I'll pass it right away after they're fixed. Good job so far, keep working at it. -- Nehrams2020 22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The propellers are composite on the 1900C also.
---
Says who? The post is not signed.
To the writer of the above post, do you have any source for this information? 76.224.119.45 09:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that a search for B1900 redirects to epoch? Not sure if it's a common enough use to make it worth a disambig page or some other solution Jddriessen ( talk) 12:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I corrected two changes which were previously made in February, 2008, and elaborated on a third.
The correct number of aircraft is 695, not 685. 3 UAs, 74 UBs, 174 UCs, 6 UDs, and 438 UEs were built: = 695.
SmackBot demanded verification that AvGas is a permitted fuel. It is. The Aircraft Flight Manual authorizes the limited use of aviation grade gasoline as a temporary or emergency fuel, with limitations. The lowest available grade of fuel (preferably 80 low lead) should be used, the aircraft is limited to a ceiling of 18,000' due to the risk of vapor lock at higher altitudes, auxiliary fuel pumps must be run continuously, and the aircraft cannot be operated for more than 100 cumulative hours on AvGas without having a hot section inspection, due to potential lead fouling of the turbine blades. This is all per the AFM. From 2001 to 2007, I flew the 1900D for six years for a now-defunct Part 121 regional airline (Skyway Airlines), and from 2004 to 2007, I was a Check Airman authorized by the FAA to train, qualify and check pilots for Skyway.
Fuel range: The fuel range of the 1900D is well over 1,000 miles. Cruising fuel consumption is about 600 lb/hr, and it has a fuel capacity of 4,484 pounds. Even allowing for the extra fuel burn of takeoff and climb to its service ceiling of 25,000', this provides a range of more than 5 hours. Without accounting for the effects of wind, that allows for flights of more than 1,500 miles nonstop.
Most airlines operate the airplane on legs ranging from 20-30 minutes to two hours (60 to 600 miles), for two reasons. One, passenger comforts are limited: there is no flight attendant or food/beverage galley, the cabin is louder than most jet aircraft, and many operators do not include the optional lavatory. Two, on flights up to an hour, the 1900's speed difference as compared to jets doesn't significantly affect flight times. (All aircraft have to slow to 250 knots below 10,000'. Thus, the takeoff, climb, later descent and landing speeds are similar to jets.) Cruising at 300 v. 450 knots TAS is not significant on short flights when nearly as much time is spent in the terminal area as in cruise. However, the longer the flights get, and the greater the percentage of the flight that is spent in cruise, the more significant the cruise speed differences become. It is usually not practical to carry passengers on flights of more than two hours (600 mi.).
Mikepurves ( talk) 05:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk updated Mikepurves ( talk) 20:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Can the 1900C also accommodate a lavatory, or is this solely restricted to the 1900D? Greg Salter ( talk) 00:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Both can be equipped with a Lav. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.147.58.75 ( talk) 03:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
What about Let L-410 Turbolet? - has sold more than 11 hundred versus 695 for the Beechcraft! ( Poligraf P. Sharikov ( talk) 11:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
Isn't File:ContinentalConnection.jpg also a 1900? 76.66.196.229 ( talk) 13:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
...is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Beechcraft_1900. - Ahunt ( talk) 21:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
See [1]. This is the same airport and runway as the first crash listed from 1987. Early reports indicate pilot error may be to blame but nothing is official yet. There were no injuries. I may be able to get an image, the plane is still sitting at the airport and I live nearby to it. The landing gear is back down now but you can see the flat tires and the probably the prop damage as well. I imagine it will be there a while as NTSB investigates, if it seems notable enough for a mention here let me know and I will try to get and good shot of it, although it is behind the airport fence. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Beechcraft 1900/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
B=at least until peer review is done Does not cite sources, does not adhere to WP:MOS (intro too short, etc.) - Emt147 Burninate! 00:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 00:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 09:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
With this change User:BilCat undid my word change in one place from "certificated" to "certified".
I'm not too het up about this, but the ES says "correct term". In that case, the other four uses of "certified" should presumably be changed to "certificated". I know that in English there is no noun that cannot be verbed, but we tend to aim for consistency within articles. Wiktionary defines "certificate" (verb) as "to supply with a certificate", which is just the end result of the process of certifying something.
Thanks 178.164.139.37 ( talk) 04:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Per image styling
MOS:IMAGELOCATION: "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text "
- and a notation from an editor stating "
As a style point it is better to have noses of aircraft and engines facing the text" -What's the reasoning to counter that thinking?
FOX 52
talk! 04:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)