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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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. .

 

Dont you need A/P in RVSM airspace?

 

Maybe he was flying the -23 at 410 before RVSM came about.

USMCFLYR

 

It's relatively new in the big scheme ...

but, yes.

 

I guess I meant 24/25, oops.

Whats the cockpit noise level in these like compared the to Citations?

 

This was back in the 70s and we routinely went to 410. NO RVSM then. Heck, when I started flying we barely had mode C.

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)

 

Back then the Lears and a few fighters were the only ones up at 410. Now it is routine. Pete Reynolds was at Lear when they got certified up to 510 and his is an interesting story about how they got that certification. And NO ONE was up at 510 except Concorde, the U-2s and SR-71s.

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.