Often referred to as an "executive mailing tube". My only small amount of Lear time was in a 31A - pretty amazing aircraft.

Regards, Tom

You shouldn’t need the door motor to open the door normally. It’s only used to pull the two halves together to latch it.

Matt, I think they called that Blowing Coal, long before someone coined the phrase Rolling Coal

Edit: Paul beat me to it

Doubtful

That Lear up to the Lear 35/36 & 31 does have an electric motor in the door but the purpose of the motor is to pull the doors together to allow the latch for the upper door to close.

Once closed the motor is reversed and the hook is retracted to facilitate opening the door as needed.


https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-l ... d-6-killed

It would be infinitely easier to single-handedly shove about 9 yards of wet string up a very angry wildcat's rectum than get all those airplanes you mentioned modified and certified for single pilot operations. If you really, really wanted to do the string thing at least it is remotely possible.

Edit: Paul beat me to it

Doubtful

That Lear up to the Lear 35/36 & 31 does have an electric motor in the door but the purpose of the motor is to pull the doors together to allow the latch for the upper door to close.

Once closed the motor is reversed and the hook is retracted to facilitate opening the door as needed.


https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/crash-l ... d-6-killed

One of the passengers was a member of my church. Her husband said the first responders reported hearing an electric motor operating just before the fire. The passengers were alive and asking the first responders for help to get out and were trying to open the door.


Thanks for clarifying the door operation.

The second window on the right side of the Lear 23 was an emergency exit. More intuitive to open. Why wouldn't they have tried that? How was the passenger briefing?

Probably no passenger briefing.
That was Charles Shultz’s plane. He wrote the peanuts column.

Probably no passenger briefing.
That was Charles Shultz’s plane. He wrote the peanuts column.

Modern avionics provide the same advantages regardless of the age of the airframe, it’s all a matter of bang for the buck.

The 20 series Lears had NO problem with useful load from a performance standpoint. Depending on the model, max gross could be a technical issue, but the thrust to weight was enormous. Matching that with a modern fan engine would be the trick, but assuming it could be done you’d have similar performance and much better range. In an airplane that handled like a sports car. You decide if that’s a benefit or detriment.

The practical problem is that by the time you gut the plane, overhaul the ancient electrical and hydraulic systems, install new digital avionics, hang FADEC controlled fans on it, and get it certified again you’d have to charge as much or more than a current production airplane.

Had Learjet survived in some form, and they wanted to compete with the current light jets I think they could have, but it would still require a massive engineering project.

All of that said, the video brought a tear to my eye. The 23 was my first jet, my first Type, and to this day far and away the best airplane I’ve ever flown.

Oh, and the panel and interior? The restored airplane looks better than factory new. Welcome to the 1960s.

At least Lear survived until 2021 when they ceased production oi the Lear 75.

The last and the first: