Talk:Beechcraft 1900/Archive 1

Archive 1

Speeds: IAS v. TAS

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?

Somebody want to get off their butts and resolve this? This is the only airplane article I've ever seen where the maximum speed is BELOW the cruise speed. A little common sense, alright? Greg Salter (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue arose because an earlier editor suggested dropping the IAS/TAS distinction.

IAS (Indicated Airspeed) is the airspeed read from the airspeed indicator. As an airplane climbs into thinner air, the reduced air density means that the airspeed indicator receives less ram air pressure. An airplane at 30,000' going exactly the same speed as one at 18,000' will read a lower Indicated Airspeed.

TAS (True Airspeed) reflects the actual speed an airplane is moving through the air. At higher altitudes, the difference between indicated airspeed and true airspeed can be dramatically different. (At 41,000' an Indicated AS of 250 kt. roughly reflects a True AS of 455 kt.)

Most aircraft speed limits are reflected in indicated airspeed, which represent both an aerodynamic pressure on the airframe and control surfaces, and an easily-read speed indication.

True airspeed is used for flight planning purposes -- taking wind into account, it gives you reliable ground speed and flight time indications.

Incidentally, the use of different units of measure makes technical sense, because different things are being measured. But it is obviously confusing to anyone not conversant with the subject. Mikepurves (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've been waiting for a couple years for this to get resolved LIKE EVERY OTHER AIRCRAFT ARTICLE, but no one has. So I got specs from the Raytheon website and updated the article according to that. If anyone wants to dispute the number given, you must have a better linked reference than the one from the company who made the plane. Greg Salter (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Fire Detection System, Aircraft Performance

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.

POV Issue

"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)

I initially removed this as POV, but it was added back. In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I decided to leave it, but requested a source and got nothing. My mom, however, seems to have primarily negative memories of her flights on regional turboprops, and being in the industry, I know that the planes she's mostly remembering are Beech 1900s. The noise is her biggest complaint, although I don't recall it being that loud the couple of times I've flown on them.

Since there's been no source cited yet, I'm removing it from the article. If someone can cite a source here, we can add it back.--chris.lawson 12:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

GA failed

1. Well written? Fail (lead section too short)

2. Factually accurate? Fail (no reference section hence no reference also, no inline citations)

3. Broad in coverage? Pass

4. Neutral point of view? Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Pass

Additional comments :

• In section Development, certification, and production it starts discussing about the fact that the engine was developed from the KA200 but it doesn't go into details which makes me say maybe we should change the title of the section to reflect what is in it.
• Shouldn't Design and variants be a subsection of Development, certification, and production.
• Specifications (Beechcraft 1900D) section should probably be turned into a floating infobox.

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)

This article needs many more inline citations, and the citations need to be formatted correctly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jolb (talk • contribs) 02:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Service ceiling vs. max operating altitude

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)

GA on hold

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.

1. 1. Expand the lead some more, there is plenty of information in the article to add a few more sentences. Also, in the last sentence of the intro, it states that it is the most successful 19-seater in history. Elaborate on history (corporate, airline, U.S., etc.).
   2. Wikilink: Beechcraft again in the first paragraph (in case somebody skips the intro) & aft.
   3. "It remains in common use as a freight aircraft, to carry skydivers, and in many other roles." Clean up this statement, it doesn't sound parallel.
   4. "The Twin Bonanza was very strongly built, and Beechcraft recognized that the "T-Bone's" structure could support a cabin-class aircraft." Explain "very strongly built", whether its a particular construction method, type of material used, etc.
   5. "It has been modified many times, and it currently remains in active production in three civilian variants, the King Air 90, 200 and 350." Add comma after 200.
   6. In several instances, "the 1900" is mentioned by itself. (ex. The 1900 entered service in February 1984, with the first ExecLiner corporate version delivered in 1985.) Perhaps use "the 1900 model" or "the 1900 aircraft".
   7. "A total of 695 Beechcraft 1900 aircraft were built. This makes the Beechliner the best-selling 19-passenger airliner in history." Merge the two together.
   8. Several statements mention the number of aircraft built. Make sure these are up to date.
   9. "Examples of C-12J aircraft in military service include one used for GPS jamming tests at the 586th Flight Test Squadron, Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico,[3], another..." Remove the extra comma after the citation.
   10. "The recommended fuel is Jet A. The engines are approved for limited operations on other forms of jet fuel and even on aviation-grade gasoline.[6]" Fix the wording to sound more encyclopedic and attempt to combine the two statements.
   11. There are several sentences that stand by themselves in various sections. Either combine them with another paragraph or expand on the information to make another paragraph.
   12. "The aircraft may be equipped with a lavatory, using space otherwise available for passenger seating and cargo storage." Don't use "may", instead something use like "Some models of the aircraft are equipped...".
   13. "The ICAO designator for the 1900 is B190." B190 doesn't need to be bold. Also this section is too short to stand by itself. Either elaborate on the section or remove it and merge it into another section.
   14. Move the related content section up above the footnotes and external links.
   15. Add a source for the Image:Beech 1900D Simulator.jpg, saying who took the picture or if it was taken online from which site.

Add citations for:

1. 1. The Beech 18, or "Twin Beech" as it was often called, was hugely successful, with a production run of over 30 years, more than 9,000 built and more approved modifications than any other airplane in history. (And elaborate on history again)
   2. It was also successful and remains in common use with freight airlines such as Ameriflight.
   3. The King Air is the most successful civilian turboprop aircraft in history, and the most successful business transport. (I think you know about the history part by now)
   4. The Beechcraft 1900 was developed directly from the King Air 200.
   5. As of September 2006, UA-3 is in service with Bolivia's Ministry of National Defence in La Paz.
   6. On the 1900 and 1900C, the blades are metal. On the 1900D, the blades are made from composite materials.
   7. Ordinary trip lengths range from 100 to 600 miles (20 minutes to two hours), but with full fuel tanks, the aircraft is capable of flying well in excess of 1,000 nautical miles.
   8. The airplane is certified to fly up to an altitude of 25,000 feet (7,600 meters) above mean sea level.
   9. Other airlines operate Beechcraft 1900s in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere around the world, as do many corporate and freight operators.
   10. The last 16 Beechcraft 1900D airliners built were sold to Eagle Airways to provide regional services for Air New Zealand.
   11. "According to Flight International magazine, 451 1900s remain in airline service as of August, 2006, as follows:" Flight International needs to be italicized. Also the list should be bulleted.
   12. For the military operators and Notable incidents involving Beech 1900s sections, either elaborate on them or merge them into another section. The Notable incidents involving Beech 1900s should definitely be expanded, with just a few sentences about each incident.

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)

Though I've been on the edge of editing this article, I'd like to respond to a few of these items. First, though, I appreciate you taking the time to review the article and put this list together. In your 5th item, you say to add a comma, however, the MOS and Serial comma make it clear that this is not mandatory, and that there's a fair amount of support for not having a serial comma, since there's no ambiguity without it. It the 6th item, you state to phrase the aircraft's name as "the 1900 model" or "the 1900 aircraft". Actually, accuracy in aviation terms is also important, and neither of these would be correct. Having "the 1900" actually is correct, just as we would say (in a Porsche article) "the 911" or in another aircraft article "the F-4". Just some thoughts. On item 14, you are not correct, the related content should not be moved up. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content for page layout standards; it's correct where it is.

As for the comment about the ICAO, with airports the ICAO call sign is part of the lead paragraph (see Mojave Spaceport for example), I'm wondering if it'd be appropriate to do the same for the aircraft's designation? Akradecki 06:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of those suggestions are based on other articles I've seen and other projects I work with, so if there is policy for the airplane WP, then go with its ruling and ignore my suggestions for that. For the serial comma, you can add it or not, I just wanted to be pointed out since again that's what I'm used to. For "the 1900", that sounded new to me, it appeared that adding something after the 1900 would be more descriptive. After your explanation, I understand why you want to leave it. If you want, you can start crossing the suggestions off as you complete them to get a better idea of progress and for any items that you think are correct (like #14) then just put a comment with your rationale for not changing it to make it easier for me to look over. Good job again on the article, and ignore any suggestions that do not follow the article's project guidelines. --Nehrams2020 04:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

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)

Metal Props

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)

B1900 redirect

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)

B1900 is a not-too-unusual usage in astronomy; much more common are B1950 and J2000 , rarer is B1875 — 76.66.196.229 (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous changes May 2008

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)

Lavatories on the 1900C?

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)

Most popular 19-seater?

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))

Hmmm, you may be right. However, before this article gets changed, I think the L-410 article needs a source to confirm it's own numbers; this article has a reference while the L-410 does not. Greg Salter (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_l410_en.php +

http://www.let.cz/index.php?sec=43 - is it good enough? (Poligraf P. Sharikov (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

You bet! I've changed this article, and I'll add the references to the 410 article. Greg Salter (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks! :) (Poligraf P. Sharikov (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

File:ContinentalConnection.jpg

Isn't File:ContinentalConnection.jpg also a 1900? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The operators list for this article

...is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Beechcraft_1900. - Ahunt (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Era Alaska operates beechcraft 1900D'd and C's it should be mentioned 216.67.3.61 (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

How many do they have and do you have a reference for that? - Ahunt (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A late reply, but see below, they've got at least one, but it's not doing so good right now. actually I know they have more because I see them every day! and I imagine their website has more details. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

possible addition to incident list

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)

In reading the accident news article you link above it looks like it is pretty non-notable, a simple mechanical failure, no serious damage and no injuries (thankfully). The inclusion standard for accidents is at WP:AIRCRASH and this seems to fall well short. - Ahunt (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

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)

"certificated"

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)

Article facing

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)

• 
  current main pic
• 
  proposed
• 
  proposal

It's common practice to reach consensus in talk before changing the main picture. The text-facing requirement is an advice, not a rule. The most important thing is to best depict the aircraft configuration. Both pictures are similar in this respect. Other considerations can include the quality of the picture, and the current picture has better light and a better background. And it's minor, but the Swiss AF livery is a bit misleading as it's much more a civil aircraft than a military one. There are hundreds of pictures to pick from commons, maybe there should be a better one than both.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste: The was no consensus here -(per his edit summary "Tentative replacement of lead image with a slightly clearer alternative -- feel free to revert if disagree" so It was a tentative replacement, - I'm reverting as I disagree - FOX 52 ^talk! 06:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This was in 2014! Anyway, The Air NZ pic is an improvement.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)