Looks like they had to stop 3 times for kerosene from OSH back to Coeur D'Alene.

Extremely cool plane, but I might make that same trip on 100 gallons of 100LL and arrive an hour sooner.

A few pics from OSH:

It is interesting to read the comments about our Aerostar Jet prototype from experienced aviators. Here are a couple of answers to questions and comments about the airplane:

These P&W 615 engines are FADEC controlled and idle down at about 48% compressor speed which makes idle thrust very low, and thrust attenuators unnecessary. In fact, you can start both engines without any breaking, and the airplane will not move until you bring the idle speed up to about 65% compressor rpm. A lot of legacy or non FADEC engines idle at 70% or more rpm which is why experienced jet pilots would think thrust reversers or attenuators would be required.

Because of the low idle speed, FOD has not been a concern but we can always incorporate the bleed air jets that Boeing uses on the 737 engines when they operate on gravel runways. Engines on the wings have several advantages which is why almost all airliners now have them there. Most business jets were developed 30 years ago when airliners had engines mounted on the aft fuselage, so it is understandable that small jets followed suit. Aft fuselage mounted engines are still subject to FOD from rocks picked up by the main tires and by fuselage ice that comes off in chunks and by a window failure. Both designs are subject to FOD but not one a lot more than another.

We have been operating with 209 gallons usable fuel and I Initially planned on about 1.2 hr. 400 mile legs. I have been very conservative regarding range and have never burned more than half the fuel we had on board. Now that we have real world numbers on fuel burn we can extend that out to about 650 miles. We are increasing the usable fuel to 275 gallons now and will go up to 300 gallons soon which will give us another 400 miles with reserves.

Thanks for all of the positive comments and questions. This looks like an excellent forum. Glad to be able to answer a few questions. PS. I have Bonanza, Baron, Duke, and KingAir time and have a high regard for Beech products.

Jim Christy

Jim,

I'm glad to see you here. Stick around. It's an interesting place.

And much more active than AOA.

Jim,

Thanks for chiming in on BeechTalk and welcome!
Have you considered the advantages of moving the engines on top of the wings, like Honda did with their jets? Admittedly, they look kinda funny, especially so high up on the mounts.

Regards,
Kent

Kent,

We did look at over the wing mounting but it didn't look right and would have required raising the tail to get it out of the jet blast area. Attached is a panel shot at FL280 in cruise. Also attached is an artist's conception of the Aerostar 2000-1 conceived by Ted Smith way back in 1970.

Jim

Welcome, Jim!

Awesome Jim... always loved the Aerostar for one reason or another though I've never actually flown in one! Do you have to pull the throttles back to 166KTS when you hit the rough stuff?

Nice! I thought the yellow arc on the airspeed indicator was replaced with a barber pole?

Based on that photo, and a 4kt per 1,000 reduction in VNE above fl240, it looks like the Jetstar cruises at redline at FL280.

I'll add to the "welcome," apologize for the trail of drool I left on the plane at OSH; it looks pretty cool from a distance, but when you get up close... well, it's like Sandra Bullock invited me to peek under the covers! Your plane is a gem.

The whole project is sort of audacious, and I hope you can keep it alive. Is the plan strictly to retrofit existing airframes, or might you build new? It certainly seems, based upon your prelim figures, that you have a potentially-competitive package.

Keep us posted; as I believe you must surely know, Beechcraft pilots are by far the most likely users of any high-performance aircraft!

Jim, Welcome to BT!

Are additional bladders, fuel cells being installed in the wings to get to the proposed 300 gal? Any thoughts of adding winglets like those for the Baron which can add additional fuel capacity?

A few answers:

I think we will raise the max operating speed to 260 knots or higher. Since gust loads are not limiting the existing Aerostar's max speed, we can probably have a fairly high turbulence penetration speed.

We need to replace the old ASI with an airspeed which has a mach number readout. I have had the airplane up to 251 indicated at FL280 which was about 381 true. There was plenty of thrust left which is why I believe we can cruise at 400+ knots. I have had the piston airplane up to 285 knots in a dive for a red line increase flight test but we will have to do some flutter testing before settling on the final number. The original flutter tests said no flutter up to 500 mph. There are very sophisticated flutter testing methods in use today and we will need to hire an expert and go through the tests.

The inboard sections of the wing ahead of the spar are now sealed wet fuel tanks. They hold about 25 gal. each and we are installing caps in them now and will soon have that fuel available. We will soon have winglets available for the Aerostar but they are pretty thin and wouldn't hold much additional fuel.

Jim

Spike,
Thanks for the kind words. Existing airframes could be retrofitted, but for not a lot more, you could build new ones with a 32 to 44" longer fuselage if people wanted that. The problem with new is the manufacturing assembly facility and inventory costs for production would be about $50,000,000. Still that is about one tenth the cost of a start up different design, and at that cost, and modest sales, you have a good chance of the company being worth ten time that amount in 5 years. Another option would be to partner with someone who already has the facility to build airframes for you. It would be like adding another line to their production facility.

Jim