|
Quick Older Lear Questions
A little bit ago I was having a long chat with a DPE who does Citation types about CJs and Lears. He was going on and on about how crappy and dangerous the older Lears are. He said that the V1 cut in a 25/26 was especially bad. Something about having to go full yoke forward to keep the airplane on the runway or it would rotate and VMC on its own.
Any body care to chime in about what the Lears are like to fly? Also, I was wondering if typically the older Lears (25/35/55) are fitted with any sort of FMS or what the typical nav system is? |
Originally Posted by rthompsonjr
(Post 394800)
A little bit ago I was having a long chat with a DPE who does Citation types about CJs and Lears. He was going on and on about how crappy and dangerous the older Lears are. He said that the V1 cut in a 25/26 was especially bad. Something about having to go full yoke forward to keep the airplane on the runway or it would rotate and VMC on its own.
Any body care to chime in about what the Lears are like to fly? Also, I was wondering if typically the older Lears (25/35/55) are fitted with any sort of FMS or what the typical nav system is? Contrary to what many assumed by looking at the -20 series, it did require FULL rudder and quickly on a V1 cut. When I instructed in them, the rule was go to the floor with the rudder and then see if you could reduce the input a little. Invariably students found out best course was to put it in and leave it in. The -23 was the one that required the most attention. The -24 felt like a larger airplane than it was and the -25 was almost sedate compared to the -23. All would HAUL! We used to ask pax if they wanted transportation or an airplane ride. AND if he was talking about a '-26', the guy was peeing on his own shoes as there WAS NO -26. There were some -28s and -29s which were the first civilian machines with winglets after the Air Force had decided to not put winglets on the KC-135. As for nav equipment, it was VOR/DME, ADF and ILS with an FD-108 flight director. We didn't know what an FMS was... <G> The airplane was not dangerous but there were lots of guys who were going into Learjets who had not had good training and/or had little jet experience. For them, the Lear 23 was MORE than a handful. One we had later went to an outfit in RIC and they dug a hole with it practicing single engine approaches. The 31 was a much more docile machine than the 20 series and the 45 and 60 are sweet rides in my opinion although I only had a few flights in each. Yes, you had to pay attention to the -23. Dangerous it was NOT. It did have problems. At night if you had the cockpit lights low enough to not cast a reflection on the windscreen, you could barely seem them. To see them well, you had them bright enough to reflect. Also, if you didn't heat the windshield on decent and you went into a high moisture environment (MIA, FLL), expect to go woxof after landing due to fogging of the windows. Also, you had to be careful with fuel as it could be a problem if you got out of balance, especially when ground refueling. FWIW, you hear this stuff often from guys, 'It is a real killer' or "It is a serious machine'. I heard it about the 727 and that was one of the sweetest most honest machines I ever had the privilege to fly. |
Originally Posted by III Corps
(Post 394871)
Our -23 had no autopilot so you had to hand-fly it even at 410. It took some attention and finesse but it was not an overly difficult task.
Contrary to what many assumed by looking at the -20 series, it did require FULL rudder and quickly on a V1 cut. When I instructed in them, the rule was go to the floor with the rudder and then see if you could reduce the input a little. Invariably students found out best course was to put it in and leave it in. The -23 was the one that required the most attention. The -24 felt like a larger airplane than it was and the -25 was almost sedate compared to the -23. All would HAUL! We used to ask pax if they wanted transportation or an airplane ride. AND if he was talking about a '-26', the guy was peeing on his own shoes as there WAS NO -26. There were some -28s and -29s which were the first civilian machines with winglets after the Air Force had decided to not put winglets on the KC-135. As for nav equipment, it was VOR/DME, ADF and ILS with an FD-108 flight director. We didn't know what an FMS was... <G> The airplane was not dangerous but there were lots of guys who were going into Learjets who had not had good training and/or had little jet experience. For them, the Lear 23 was MORE than a handful. One we had later went to an outfit in RIC and they dug a hole with it practicing single engine approaches. The 31 was a much more docile machine than the 20 series and the 45 and 60 are sweet rides in my opinion although I only had a few flights in each. Yes, you had to pay attention to the -23. Dangerous it was NOT. It did have problems. At night if you had the cockpit lights low enough to not cast a reflection on the windscreen, you could barely seem them. To see them well, you had them bright enough to reflect. Also, if you didn't heat the windshield on decent and you went into a high moisture environment (MIA, FLL), expect to go woxof after landing due to fogging of the windows. Also, you had to be careful with fuel as it could be a problem if you got out of balance, especially when ground refueling. FWIW, you hear this stuff often from guys, 'It is a real killer' or "It is a serious machine'. I heard it about the 727 and that was one of the sweetest most honest machines I ever had the privilege to fly. USMCFLYR |
I would ditto all IIIcorps said and add that several 20's and most 35/36 have some sort of Nav systems, many dual KNS or UNS. The plane had quite a few quirks which current engineers would find below acceptable standards, but like the fogging of the windows most were nuisance and not a true safety issues. On the other hand, she did demand your attention and prefer to be flown correctly; certainly not adverse to being a little *****y. I didn't fly the 23, but the 24 was a blast, aside from always being out of fuel. It was a great comfort to be able to hit the loud levers and get out of Dodge at 6000 FPM. On the V1 cut, I was taught to keep her on centerline on the ground untill I was sure, and it worked, although my engine failures occured at cruise so I never got to truly prove the technique. .
|
Originally Posted by III Corps
(Post 394871)
Our -23 had no autopilot so you had to hand-fly it even at 410. It took some attention and finesse but it was not an overly difficult task.
|
Originally Posted by RJ Pilot
(Post 395002)
Dont you need A/P in RVSM airspace?
USMCFLYR |
It's relatively new in the big scheme ...
Between 1997 and 2005 RVSM was implemented in all of Europe, North Africa, Southeast Asia and North America, South America, and over the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Pacific Oceans. The North Atlantic implemented initially in March 1997 at flight levels 330 through 370. The entire western hemisphere implemented RVSM FL290-FL410 on January 20, 2005. |
I guess I meant 24/25, oops.
Whats the cockpit noise level in these like compared the to Citations? |
Originally Posted by RJ Pilot
(Post 395002)
Dont you need A/P in RVSM airspace?
We used to do night runs in it hauling checks. Always at FL410. And you doubled the distance for your peak altitude enroute with anything over 200 miles being, obviously, FL410. One cold night headed from PDK to Plains Georgia, we just cut it loose and made 410 before we pulled it to idle and headed back down. airnav.com puts that distance at 106 miles. (BTW, Souther Field at Americus is a famous airfield and NO not because of some grinnin' peanut farmer. It is THE airfield where the Lone Eagle first soloed. Some wanted to change the name of the field when he died but his widow preferred that the name not be changed) |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 394890)
Sounds like my current ride Corps; all the way to the fogging of the windsheild going into EFD recently! Thanks for the breakdown. I'd always heard that the Lears were quick rides. Met a guy flying a 65 some weeks ago in ABQ. He said they could get to 410 in 14 minutes. I tired in later and made 430 in 12 so that is a pretty good clip for a bizjet!
USMCFLYR But to show how things have changed, one of my old F/Os from the USAF went onto American where he flew 767s for a long time. Mike, my F/O, had to ferry a 767 out of ORD to DFW one wintry night. Fuel to destination and :45 reserve... no pax, no freight. Mike is not one to embellish but he said he asked ORD for an unrestricted climb which they approved and he was at FL410 in less than 8 minutes. I only got to fly the 767 domestically and so we flew it *relatively* light and even ISA+20 we would go to 410 headed coast to coast. From my one flight in the 60, it handles like a bigger airplane but goes like the 20 series. Excellent combination of handling and performance. |
Originally Posted by rthompsonjr
(Post 395200)
I guess I meant 24/25, oops.
Whats the cockpit noise level in these like compared the to Citations? Both airplanes were noisy when you turned on the windshield bleed. THE noisiest cockpit was the Boeing cockpit which is the same on the 707/727/737. I always used ear plugs above 250kts and on our 727s you could do over 400 indicated in the A mode but you were using hand signals to communicate or yelling very loudly. I think the quietest cockpit I was in was the MD-80s. Lots of white noise but very quiet compared to the earlier Boeings. All cockpits are much better with the ANR headsets. Oh, and I just remembered.. THE NOISIEST cockpit I ever was in was a C-123K. 2 big recips right by the cockpit AND two jet engines. How any of those guys are not without hearing aids now is a miracle. |
Flew the 35 (C-21) for a while in Germany. Interesting what was said about having to go full yoke foreward after an engine failure on the runway. The placement of the engines in the Lear are above the waterline, so a reduction in thrust will cause a pitch-up. Don't remember having to go full foreward on V1 cuts (always held some foreward pressure until rotate anyways), but the fact that the aircraft would flare for you as you pulled power either made for nice landings or PIOs when guys over controlled. The only thing that could be considered dangerous about the airplane was the fuel system. It was easy to find yourself with a significant imbalance in the tip tanks very quickly while crossfeeding (typically during engine-out work). We managed to kill a few crewmembers that way.
|
Lear Jet models 23/24/25. I’ve flown all three. Don’t remember too much about the V1 cuts. They all had autopilots, somewhat crude though. Could climb performance, 6000fpm with fuel and pax.. The 23 we had was limited to FL 41.0, the 24 had a FL 45.0 limit and the 25 had the FL 51.0 limit. It was a challenge to hand fly them at those altitudes. I spent about 2 ½ hours hand flying one at FL 45.0. You have to be real smooth to do it. We had the 25 up to FL 50.0 one day. At FL 45.0 and above you can really see the curvature of the earth.
The 25 had a flight director and the 23/24 had HSI’s |
The avionics package is somewhat different in each of the Lear 35's.
Most of the 35's have the standard stuff I would think: FD, HSI, Dual VOR/LOC, DME and ADF. All the 35's I have flown have a GPS, mostly Trimble, but some Garmin and the KNS90. Off course most of these units have been located a little different in each airplane. These are off course all cargo airplanes. I would dare to say MOST corporate 35's would have FMS, TCAS and GPWS. I have flown a 35 with a navigation system were you make adjustment for Magnetic variation. Need for navigation close to the North/South pole. Some 35's have a retro fitted higher take off/landing weight kit. With it comes a Vmo/Mmo select button. It limits you speed at certain weights. I'm sure there are more that I can't think of at the moment. The Lear I have flown have been spread over somewhat a wide range of serial numbers so that makes it more fun:rolleyes:. Differences in the electrical system, cabin system, Alcohol anti-ice system, emergency battery system. And off course they may or may not have been retro fitted with a kit that fixes some of the earlier serial number design features. It's kind of amazing that the FAA allows you with a LR-JET type rating to fly the 20, 30 series and the Lear 55. I have some experience with the 24's and while it had many similarities with the 35's it was also very different. It too off course had different models. For example the 35's will disengage the starter for you (hopefully) but in the 24's you had to do that. Some of the 24's had a electrical wing and stab anti-ice system while 35's use bleed air. It's the only Jet I have flown so far. I think at some point in my life I will look back on my time in the Lear with a massive amount of Nostalgia. |
Originally Posted by Iflyfr8
(Post 505072)
Off course most of these units have been located a little different in each airplane.
These are off course all cargo airplanes. And off course they may or may not have been retro fitted with a kit that fixes It too off course had different models. Hopefully not too far off course! |
That is funny! I didn't see it until you pointed it out. Thank you for POINTING IT OUT!
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:58 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands