Maybe I am just a weenie but I've been in two jets that got slow, in both cases the pilot was focused on landing and let his airspeed bleed off... in both cases the co-pilot caught it and saved the airplane. In one case the co-pilot who happened to be a more experienced pilot in that particular model of jet took the airplane and put it on the runway and kept us from getting rolled up into a ball.

No matter how good of a stick you are, it's easy to get overwhelmed if outside factors start to pile up... if you look at most accidents there's a string of mistakes or events leading up to the "pilot error" that caused the crash.

I'm not a pilot (no medical) but I have flown right seat a lot... just my ability to handle the radios and keep an extra set of eyes on things makes it easier for whoever I'm flying with. I've kept a buddy from busting his altitude, another from flying into the Crawford Ranch TFR, and been able on numerous occasions to just help out. I'm not saying you can't fly any jet single pilot, just that you can't safely fly some single pilot and it's always safer to fly any of them with two pilots.

Chip:

Everything you said is true....for any airplane! I think "jets" get a bad rap. Not sure why. As discussed they are faster but...and this is key...not too fast for a competent pilot.

For a qualified, experienced guy/gal...flying a jet SP is going to be safer/simpler than a piston to TP twin. Imagine a Cessna 310/King Air/Citation all with the exact same Garmin 600/750 panel. The AP's will be a little different I know. Hard to make the case for a competent, qualified pilot SP that the Citation isn't the safer/preferred machine. It climbs faster to better weather, it handles engine failure with less work. You can fly an approach at 120 knots if you desire. Vref is 95-105. No mixture, no prop governors, less noise. Etc etc.

I will grant you that, as Allen pointed out, pressurization issues at altitude add a bit of complexity but if the rules (and checklists) are followed, it seems to be quite manageable.

Finally!! Someone admits it!

Thank you sir.

Jason

Pistons are a PITA. I always got step climbs here in LA basin, so by the time you level out, reduced props, leaned to LOP, EGT's, CHT's, set up fuel flows etc it was time to climb again. Everything forward and you had to start all over again. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it took about 10 minutes to get the Aerostar set up perfectly for cruise flight in LOP with all numbers being where they're supposed to be. In an two or three part step climb, which was not uncommon, that's about 20mins of time wasted babying ancient piston engines with eyes inside the cockpit looking at gauges, rather than looking outside.

Although I've not flown any jets, they seem like operationally they should be easier than that. I mean, if aviation was invented today and a regulation was drawn up, I would be pretty sure the old twin pistons would need the type ratings, and a modern SP jet would not.

Landing too fast is much more of an issue in a turbojet then getting too slow. #1 cause of turbojet accidents is runway overruns.

Speed control on final is one of the challenges in learning to fly a turbojet. You don't have the drag control with the prop. And there is a lag between adjusting the power and getting the airspeed to change and stabilize. Takes experience to get the right touch and a pilot will see he is faster the Vref, pull the power back to slow down, and get distracted and not see the speed decay below Vref.

So pilots usually fly too fast and fly from Vref +10 to VRef +20 or more. So if they target Vref+10 and get too slow they catch it before Vref. That is sloppy flying.

In a Citation your landing distance will increase 100' for every kt over Vref. 10 kts fast will take another 1000'. 30 kts fast will take another 3000'. Not a problem when landing on a 7000' runway and you need 2500'. Can be a big problem when landing on a 4500' runway.

We won't even discuss contaminated runways, braking action, and stopping distances in a turbojet when landing at a Vref of 100 kts or more.

Flying a turbojet is easy. Landing it in various conditions shows if you know what you are doing. Sloppy flying on approach and landing will bite real quickly in a turbojet.

Landing too fast is much more of an issue in a turbojet then getting too slow. #1 cause of turbojet accidents is runway overruns.

Speed control on final is one of the challenges in learning to fly a turbojet. You don't have the drag control with the prop. And there is a lag between adjusting the power and getting the airspeed to change and stabilize. Takes experience to get the right touch and a pilot will see he is faster the Vref, pull the power back to slow down, and get distracted and not see the speed decay below Vref.

So pilots usually fly too fast and fly from Vref +10 to VRef +20 or more. So if they target Vref+10 and get too slow they catch it before Vref. That is sloppy flying.

In a Citation your landing distance will increase 100' for every kt over Vref. 10 kts fast will take another 1000'. 30 kts fast will take another 3000'. Not a problem when landing on a 7000' runway and you need 2500'. Can be a big problem when landing on a 4500' runway.

We won't even discuss contaminated runways, braking action, and stopping distances in a turbojet when landing at a Vref of 100 kts or more.

Flying a turbojet is easy. Landing it in various conditions shows if you know what you are doing. Sloppy flying on approach and landing will bite real quickly in a turbojet.

Auto-land button

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... and-system

To the point of this discussion, a long range high flying SP turbojet will likely not have forgiving landing characteristics.

Auto-land button

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... and-system

OK. So, problem solved.

I find autolands to be more work in some ways than normal landings. Sort of like instructing presolo students.

I fly a Legacy 600 and could fly it single pilot no problem. Even in most of the emergencies that you could think of. Sure having two pilots up there makes life alot easier, but its not like its impossible to fly big jets single pilot.

now that we have that "SP thing" covered from all angles…for whatever it may be worth...

how about the original theme?

Learjet seems to be available..

good brand, good planes…


so what is going to happen in your opinion?

what "should" happen to make it worthwhile…?

I fear it is the end of the line for Lear...they don't have the right products in the market now, and of course nothing on the horizon after the 85 got cancelled. It was not a good plane in reality from everything I understand, so it would not have saved the brand had it continued. I'm surprised the program ran as long as it did, frankly.

So, that leaves some good real estate for an aviation manufacturing company that can use it, and a depleted work force. There isn't much parts-making capability left there, just final assembly. I'm not sure if the service center is part of LJ, or separate like the flight test center. That of course has value. I'm not sure where spare parts are made...likely off-load vendors.

Everyone mentions Textron as a logical buyer, but I'm not sure they need the additional hangar space. Perhaps the service center and ability to sell spare parts might interest them (and we know what they would do to prices!) but I wonder if that is enough to make a deal.

Embraer was mentioned years ago as well, but they built a new facility in FL and I'm not sure they need the space here...maybe for a central service center? They likely wouldn't use it for jet assembly.

IMO, it might be attractive for one of the start-up companies like the supersonic biz jet, XTI Tri Fan, etc that are under development but don't have a factory yet. The legacy Lear stuff could get parted out/spun off in such a case.

At the end of the day, it is quite sad that the Lear brand very likely won't survive much longer...

Best thing that could happen to it if it was bought out by some sort of owner or interest group. Those are always the best solutions. That's what happened with Aerostar and Turbo Commanders - owned by people that love them and fly them, so the service and dedication to product is impeccable. Problem with business aviation is that those owners are corporations that have very little brand loyalty. A flight department doesn't care if it's a Learjet or a Embraer as longs as it meets their finial needs. But I would suggest that the very worst thing that could happen to Learjet would by a type of owner like Textron, who's only in it to bolster corporate coffers. The vampire approach - suck the body dry and then leave the carcass when it's all over and move on the next.